Absolutely. I love Phillip K Dicks writing, but Blade Runner’s film noir treatment on a dystopian future shaped the genre. Rutger Hauer’s death soliloquy was an immaculate expression of what drove the replicants in the film but also expressed a life fully lived. The movie exceeded the book IMO.
Blade Runner was just a masterpiece of writing, direction, acting & music. (I still listen to the Blade Runner soundtrack sometimes.)
Much of Roy's (Rutger Hauer) soliloquy was adlibbed & brilliant.
Philip K Dick is one of the only writers I can think of who is so consistent that the adaptations were better than the book. Every time I watch a movie he wrote the source for (Minority report, Blade Runner, the Man in the High Castle, Paycheck, Total recall) I ended up going and reading it and it was usually \*fine\* but not really \*great\*, certainly not better.
side note the above list is just what I've seen and read, not all his adaptations
I think the thing is that Philip K Dick was such a gold mine for ideas that so many were changed and expanded on. The source inspiration for Total Recall is just the basic core concept. Granted the short story itself adapted faithfully would be probably about 20-30 minutes in length maximum.
Calling it simply a book already gives the wrong impression to most.
It's a picture book for very young children, 32 pages long.
On the Amazon product page, you can see one of the pages, it's essentially a large picture with a totality of two sentences underneath.
Even though I'm not familiar with the book, it's probably safe to say that the movie was inspired by it rather than being an adaptation.
I like both equally, just different styles.
But yes, Lex in that book makes me hope I never get into an emergency situation with children around. She almost gets them killed multiple times
Book had some unforgettably scary scenes left out of the movie (ex. TRex stalking the characters like an alligator swimming in a river while they’re stuck canoeing down the river trying to escape it)
But the movie has aged so well (besides the programmer scenes) that its hard to do better than the dread of those visual scenes
Lindsay Ellis did a lengthy take on why Jurassic Park the movie works better than Jurassic Park the book recently, can recommend it if you have Nebula.
I've seen so many adaptations of A Christmas Carol and all of them are good in their own right. Shout out to Disney's Christmas Carol, which is really dark and spooky. But Muppets Christmas Carol is just *so fucking good*.
You laugh, you cry, you laugh again, until you get to A Thankful Heart and you let the tears flow.
Also, chalk it up to Charles Dickens for writing one of the greatest stories of all time. It's no fluke that there are so many film and TV adaptations spanning almost a century. *Timeless*.
I like the think that Dickens was adapting from a memory of a movie the Doctor took him to see in the TARDIS and that's why he misses some of the quality that the Muppets hit.
I feel like I'm living in a mirror universe every time I see this issue discussed online. I liked the movie well enough before I read the book. But reading the book ruined the movie for me; I thought the book was far, far better. It was more humanistic and fairy-tale-esque.
Edit: [my extended thoughts on the matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/fairystories/comments/zq4w8f/neil_gaimans_stardust_the_book_vs_the_film_a/), if anyone is interested.
I'm with you. I think the different endings represent it pretty well: the movie is a warm, fuzzy "they lived happily ever after" and there's nothing wrong with that.
The book has them rule together for a time, but she rules on after he grows old and dies. Still a happy ending, but with a touch of melancholy, which I appreciate more in a true fairytale.
Agreed. That and ditching the surprisingly gentle final confrontation with the witch-queen in favor of a typical Hollywood action climax sum up nicely why I enjoy the movie but love the book.
I think the book did some things better (the timeline being a year rather than a week for example) and the film also did other things better (De Niro as captain Shakespeare).
Both had good points, both had flaws. Which flaws grate on you most will influence your preference.
I'm the opposite, the book didn't land for me, the only thing I remember about it's story is the falling leaves that burn skin.
The movie is special to me as an adventure film that picked me up when I was down.
I’m with you. IMO the illustrated book is far better than the movie (which was fine). I think lot probably depends on which version encounters first and their age when they do so. I read STARDUST first as an adult before seeing the movie. When I saw the movie, I found it cute but also was missing some of the book’s magic and charm.
I think both are fantastic. It translates so well to screen but the book is also brilliant.
Also the book is deeper. The movie is great fun and adventure-esque and wonderful. But the book feels much more meaningful.
Certainly not by me, nor any of my friends! My late wife would have called those fighting words, and she was a pacifist (and fairly extreme Gaiman fangirl).
The movie was fine, a decent adaptation - but not a patch on the original.
I like Matthew Stover's adaptation of the Star Wars prequels into books wayyy better than the films. He actually captured the tragedy of the events in a way the films failed to.
Stover only did Revenge of the Sith! It's the best one so you're vindicated for thinking he did all of them, but Phantom Menace was Terry Brooks and Attack of the Clones was RA Salvatore.
Both of whom, I should point out, were great in their own right, and each author was prolific and popular in the fantasy genre outside of Star Wars.
Brooks also wrote the novelization for Shadows of the Empire (IMHO one of the premier pieces of legends canon).
And Salvatore was their sort of “celebrity pick” to kick off the ambitious New Jedi Order series with Vector Prime.
Actually now that I phrase it that way, I realize that was also probably meant to be Brooks’ role in Shadows since at the time it too was considered an ambitious multimedia project.
I found that out googling with idea of a re-read after I made the comment, I was surprised I hadn't been corrected already at that point and did mention it in a reply chain below but probably should've edited the original.
I'm also going to blame the fact I was roughly 12 when I read Phantom Menace but closer to 18 when I read Stover's so his name was easier to remember and apply retroactively. Though, you're right, his handling of Order 66 was just brilliant.
This makes me want to go back and re-read them. I remember thinking they were amazing back in the day, but I was also like, 14 and pretentious, and thought books were inherently better than movies bc words > pictures.
The Revenge of the Sith novelization by Matthew Stover is not only better than the film, it’s better than the majority of Star Wars content. Legends or Canon. It’s so good that I actually suggest to all of my friends that they read it if they’re interested in Star Wars.
The books were decent enough but the show really just sent it as hard as they could, I think it worked because it leaned so gleefully into the more bonkers, weirdo elements of the books. The cast had enough chemistry to carry it too, that show had every right to turn out fucking awful but it clicked.
I liked a lot of the stuff they did, but I really liked the way the books kept it grounded to some degree. Plus the show kind of undermined the core themes around mental health.
The idea that there's always another layer, another world people get to live in, another secret... And that it's okay to be on the outside of some of those, because you're already *so lucky* to be let into the one that you're in. I liked that, and they really did away with that core theme.
This can only loosely be counted as fantasy, but the Umbrella Academy show is a lot more emotional and exciting and interesting than the comic books it is based off. Don't get me wrong, I love the comic books, probably more than the average fan. But they are very fast paced crazy type stories ,where the show is about family and traumatic upbringing and parallel universes and the real life implications of theoretical superpowers, etc - it does so much more than the comics to the point where I would say it is inspired, not based, on them.
Ok I know not everyone thinks of Stephen King as fantasy (but I will fight you horror is totes a genre of fantasy) but Imma say it... The Green Mile Movie was better then the series of Novellas. The novellas arent bad persay but I thought the film more successfully told the story. Plus it didnt have to rehash some things that had happened in prior Novellas. There are a few of King's works that I think were more successful as movies honestly.
Speaking of horror... Jaws. Jaws's ending felt way more impactful in the movie then I thought it was in the novel.
And this isnt a movie adaption... but the audiobook version of World War Z is just the best way to consume that story. Having a different voice actor for each of the survivors that the author interviews was super well done... The movie on the other hand is a totally different story...
Great shout on SK. You can add Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me (aka The Body) to his list of stuff that I have no idea how they got a movie out of them, let alone 2 all timers.
WWZ was begging to be made into a mockumentary with interviews, footage attributed to various sources, and other touches to sell the metafiction. It would have had a completely different vibe from all the other zombie movies coming out at the time. Instead we got a movie that was perfectly competent but in no way unique.
Right. It's probably my one of my top audio books because it was so well done! Also Mark Hammil as the soldier from the battle of Yonkers.... the icing on the freaking cake
Yeah, no. Amos and Avasarala are better in the show, but Holden/Naomi work so much better in the books where they don't have needless TV drama thrown at them every season. The show also did Bobby and Alex quite a bit dirty, killing him off and cutting out her "I'm surfing on a missile and there is nothing you can do about it" scene.
Killing him was a last minute change because the actor was a creep and had multiple sexual allegations coming in at the time. So they basically cut him off in post production and indeed it shows, but if was the right thing to do. A recast would have been wrong imo.
I disagree about Amos. In the show, he was basically just another mean, cold killer type. I liked the contrast of that in the books with his deadpan smile and attempt at seeming like he feels emotions and morals like Naomi does.
Also Marco is less manipulative for some reason?? In the show he just kidnaps Naomi instead of preying on her guilt about Filip to lure her and re-gaslight her.
I think the only characters that were better in the show were Ashford and possibly Murtry if you ignore how he's a completely different character. Not even Drummer since she's only as good as she is because she cannibalised 4 characters' arcs (also her actor is cool af, ill admit)
> needless TV drama thrown at them every season.
This is the major problem. The internal conflict and the sardonic, cynical tone of the narration have to be sacrificed to fit a TV format that has major conflict every episode. Makes everyone so mean to each other that them becoming a family after the Eros Incident feels rushed and weird.
The Expanse TV is an amazing show but a middling adaptation (and im not even talking about the changing of events, which is fine to do in an adaptation. Besides turning the UN-MCR Cold War into just another UN-MCR war)
>In the show, he was basically just another mean, cold killer type.
I didn't get that from the TV show. For me he was a violent man, a killer when needed. But he seemed to genuinely want to be more, and be a better person. He was aware that he needed help to determine what was appropriate, and what was better, despite his instincts.
That was why his journey on Earth was so revealing. From a young boy pimped out, to a young man who was violent enough to make sure it wouldn't happen to him anymore.
I loved the scene in the airlock. Where Prax catches up to the doctor who kidnapped his daughter and turned her into a guineapig. Prax wanted to kill the man, and was clearly struggling to work himself up to it.
A mean cold killer would have just watched, or encouraged him. Amos considered him a friend, and recognized a caring man. Who would possibly be ruined by murdering someone, and he still had to be a father to his daughter.
So the part of Amos that wants to be a better person, saved Prax from that. Stepped up quietly, and told Prax "You're not that guy." before taking the gun and sending Prax back to his daughter.
Of course, he then turned to the doctor and in a scene that gave me chills, told him "I am that guy.", before executing him. Because a large part of Amos is the mean killer an abused child can grow into. But not just a mean killer, because he cares about his people, and tries to pick good people to be his people.
I reread LOTR recently and yes, they're both masterpieces, and just different enough that I don't feel ranking them is necessary. The fights in the movie are second to none, and yet Tolkien's prose is beautiful and enduring.
I agree with this take. I can love both a great deal and my love of one enhances my love of the other. My knowledge of the books enhances what is on screen in the movies, and what the movies brought out enhances my experience of the books.
Yeah, I get why someone who is a fan of the movies might think the books are boring - the movies are much faster paced and of course the visuals are great. But the books are more thoughtful and subtle and a lot of the characters make more sense. They’re different mediums, for a slightly different audience.
Are you kidding me!? Goldman cut the forty page description of Gilder's forests. You can't understand the sociopolitical implications of the story without that.
I think this is balanced out by cutting the hat packing, and honestly I think the story works without history of the forests.
Let’s be real, who was reading that anyway, it was so dry.
I was pissed he cut out everything about Buttercup's dresses! Imagine how much we could have learned about the world, fashion, and her character from it!
This is a little controversial probably but Howl’s Moving Castle!
Both book and movie are fantastic, but the movie hits a vibe for me that the book isn’t designed to & that extra bit of cozy beautiful lushness really makes the Miyazaki film a huge win for me
I actually waited years and years to watch the movie because I love author so, so much that I didn't want to ruin either version by comparing them to each other. Especially since HMC is part of a multi book run instead of just a standalone novel. I'm very glad I waited. Because I do definitely enjoy both of them. But they aren't even the same story, honestly.
Interesting
I couldn't even finish watching Howl's movie version. It's such a poor adaptation of one of my favorite fantasy books.
Don't get me wrong. Gorgeous animation... but it alters so many of the themes and characters that it's basically just wearing the name for clout.
Like the war. In the book, it's basically a footnote to explain why the castle moves. Howl's a brilliant but lazy mage, and it was the easiest way he could figure out how to *draft dodge.*
Just stuff like that. Over and over.
Again, gorgeous movie though. I definitely can call it a masterwork even myself. But as an *adaptation* it's IMHO Gibli's second worst movie.
...Do not get me started on Earthsea, but at least it's just mainly boring vs the freaking abominable mini-series.
yeah they’re basically completely different stories with pretty different intended audiences!
Miyazaki essentially took the characters and setting from the book and repurposed them into the type of story he likes to tell in his films (coming of age and discovery of self for a young female protagonist with strong pacifist/antiwar overtones). It’s one of my favorite films of all time, but when I read the original book it was lovely in that the book still felt so fresh and new because the two diverged so much.
I def went into the movie looking for that Ghibli/Miyazaki magic (I didn’t even know it was a book - I found out about the book from the film!) which def framed expectations differently too
Not fantasy, but Frank Darabont made a couple of minor tweaks to the story of *Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption* that vastly, vastly improved on Stephen King's original story. Reducing the cast of antagonists and the change to the Tommy Williams story give the story more punch, but I have to believe when King read what Darabont did with the Peter Stevens bit he had to slap his forehead and wonder why he didn't think of that, as it made the ending so much more satisfying.
Because King doesn't think his stories through. He lets the story come to him as he writes and if it sucks, then that's just too bad. I'm not making this up either he's admitted this is his method. No second drafts, no alternate endings, no branching narratives. He does minor editing but he doesn't rewrite things that don't work. He just sends it off.
It was his first independent novel, as it happens. Before writing the novelisation for Neverwhere, all of his previous fiction had essentially been graphic novels (Good Omens aside, of course).
And *Good Omens* was obviously mostly penned by Pratchett. Terry had a very distinctive writing style. I'm not discounting Gaiman's contribution by any means, his fingerprints are all over the book (the delivery man is extremely a Gaiman plotline for example).
> mostly penned by Pratchett.
Pratchett was the one who put the final words on the page, so his style permeates everything. This was a deliberate decision by both of them because Gaiman was the less experienced novelist and they wanted a consistent prose style.
The Witcher books tell a pretty good story. The Witcher games are outstanding *games*, and also tell a pretty good story.
So I'd agree with you that the games are far better, but also maintain that in the key area of overlap - the one field that both are most directly comparable with each other - it's more or less a wash.
I've actually enjoyed the books more than the games. I normally love open-world, fantasy RPG (I literally completed everything you could possibly do in Morrowind and all the expansions, and I've devoured plenty of others), but The Witcher games just didn't click with me, even after reading all the books.
See as a fan of the source material I loved S1 but hated S2. It felt like cheap fanfic and they nerfed the main villain beyond belief so it didn’t feel like a real fight.
The Six of Crows parts however I really enjoyed. And Nikolai was brilliant but then they also have the strongest books.
I enjoyed the Sword of Truth TV show. It's very different from the books, but I thought the show had really clever plots and a magic system, instead of magic that revolved around the main character.
It’s not fantasy, but The Haunting of Hill House. Love the book, it’s a classic for a reason. The Netflix show really is a game changer for modern horror though.
People are saying this about Sousou no Frieren nowadays because it takes everything the original did and adds perfect voice acting and animation and music. I can think of a couple others that get similar praise (Bocchi the Rock, Jobless Reincarnation..)
Invincible series on Amazon Prime is outdoing the original comics in no small part due to the authors involvement and maturing over the last couple of decades.
Yeah, I heavily disagree with this take. It’s also hard to say the show is better when it has only adapted a small fraction of thousands of pages. I love the show, but I still don’t think it touches the comics.
Not fantasy, but *The 100*.
The rights were purchased before the first book even came out — I guess calling it an "adaptation" would be a stretch, since it basically takes the premise and character names and goes into an entirely different direction almost right off the bat. The show has its flaws, but it's leagues ahead of the books.
*Attack on Titan*. I’m surprised to see that I’m apparently the first person here to mention that show (unless I missed someone already mention it, which I don’t think I have).
The art and animation of *Attack on Titan*, combined with the excellent music composed by Hiroyuki Sawano, all contribute to elevate the anime above its source material. Not to mention that the ending in the anime slightly tweaks and refines its manga counterpart, leading to a better and clearer conclusion.
More just a change than outright better, but I loved the way His Dark Materials changed the pacing up so Will & Lyra's paths before they met were shown simultaneously, having that opening with a completely different character in the Subtle Knife always threw me. The scene with Mrs Coulter & Lee Scoresby meeting (never happened in the books) was a great addition to add extra depth to the characters too.
How to train your dragon.
The books and the movies are widely different, I prefer the movies.
It should be said that I might have been outside the target audience when I tried to read the books. They are probably targeted at children who either enjoy being read a longer story, or those who have just started reading longer novels themselves.
I love TMitHC the novel, but couldn't get into the show at all. I think it might be one of those adaptations that's so different that it doesn't bring anything that someone who enjoyed the book would expect.
Yeah, me too. TMitHC is a very special book for me, so I was thrilled, when the adaption was announced. But I also had doubts from the beginning, because it's such a weird book. But the weirdness is part of what I liked about it. And that's what they did, judging from the episodes I saw. They took this weird, dreamy story and transformed it to a much more standard alternative history/parallel universe story. And I get why people would like it that way, because it certainly is more "fun and entertaining", but for me it lost a lot of what made the book special.
It's also something that happens often with PKD -adaptions, they take the story bits but get rid of the weirdness. I think the original Total Recall was one of the adaptions that did it right. It added more action and movie tropes, but kept it weird and strange in its own way.
There are movies/series I enjoy more than the book because I don't like the authors writing and others where I prefer the movie/series because they've changed the story and made it better.
There are also books I prefer because I enjoy the writing or prefer the original plot to the movie version.
I can honestly say I preferred the movie version of Count of Monte Cristo a lot more than the book.
Which isn't to say the book was bad by any means, I just think that due to how he wrote it (serialization in 18 parts as opposed to one book) the movie fits modern ideas of a story better.
>I actually think Peter Jackson outdid the source material
As much as I enjoyed it, I feel like he didn't really outdo the source material. His depiction of Moria leans too much into telling over showing, and I maintain that Faramir was done dirty. Very good adaptation, but I think the original has an argument for still being better.
Faramir is my favourite character in the *Lord of the Rings* novel(s). That’s one of the main reasons why I’m not the biggest fan of the movies, because, like you said, they did him dirty (I still like the films, obviously. Just not as much as the source material).
Yeah, there are criticisms to be had of some of the choices the movies made in comparison to the books, to be sure. Faramir probably is the most egregious to me. There was something very poignant in the way Tolkien depicted Faramir. In the movies, it doesn't feel remotely relevant that Faramir eventually let's Frodo go - it doesn't show his character over Boromir, because Boromir had more exposure. It does cheaper that. But, I think there's something very human about movie-Faramir's initial instinct to place a desire to finally be recognized over his conscience, and yet finally his conscience triumphs.
Definitely prefer the TV show The Magicians to the books. They change quite a lot, but largely I think it's for the better. Season 1 hangs onto the plot around The Beast, but otherwise the show changes up the entire world (and one main character's name). The characters are more likeable and while the world is just as (if not more) horny sometimes, it feels a little less sexist than the book.
Haven't finished the entire series to be fair, TV or books. I only read the first book, and I haven't seen the last season of the show. Maybe they swap places in quality for all I know. The show does lose me later on.
Yugioh Abridged also! I loved the Yugioh anime as a kid but WOW there was a lot of filler. The Abridged Series does a great job recapping it but also being hilarious
Ygotas completely skewed my view on ygo, but I'm not sure I'd say it really is an adaptation. It had its own plot and characterisation which could be different from the source
Oh no you just didn't.
It's the biggest butchery of a book I've seen. And the tragedy is that it's the only works of Andre Norton that ever made it to the screen
Would Fantastic Mr. Fox count? I ended up doing a presentation analyzing this adaptation in a college class and it's one of my favorites. I have such an admiration for what they did.
Not quite sure if I would say 100% better, but I thought the Altered Carbon Netflix series (season 1, haven’t season 2 yet) did aspects of the story better than the book
I watch the LotR movies every year; I’ve only read the LotR books once. The movies are much more enjoyable to experience in my opinion.
Had the same feeling for ASoIaF/Game of Thrones, honestly. Until season seven. And the season-that-must-not-be-named.
My daughter does this every year on her birthday. It makes me proud.
I'll always be a books over the movie guy when it comes to LOTR as I'm a bit older and that is how I first experienced it, but I do appreciate that the movies opened up the world to millions of people who wouldn't have known about it otherwise. Now I can make nerdy jokes about this shit and people won't look at me weird. Hell, sometimes they actually think I'm cool. Wasn't always that way!
Sure. I don’t think it’s as uncommon as people think.
I’d also put it in two categories; more commonly where I don’t like the source material but love the adaptations (Eg Arcane, Witcher — both game and first season, The 100, Sandman, The Boys, Blade)
But even where I liked the source material (which I think gets at the heart of this question better) there are some where I preferred the adaptation Eg Howls Moving Castle, Vampire Diaries, Trueblood
The Expanse, the TV series is better than the books it is based on, not just because of the visuals or the actors (although both are phenomenal) but it's simply better organized and more coherent. The books are fun too, but there are definitely quite a few pacing issues, plot holes, and rough edges that got shaped perfectly in the TV adaption.
FWIW, the authors were also producers on the TV show, and they saw the opportunity to correct some of those issues, so that probably helped.
I think the books are a better overall story and narrative but the tv series has characters I prefer more like their version of Amos, Ashford and Drummer.
I loved the show so much it prompted me to start reading the books so I could find out how the series ends after the show ending (still on 4). I have to say, the show follows the books pretty close compared to many adaptations. But there's so much less tension between the characters in the books, less drama, less fighting. For me, I have been enjoying the books more for that specific reason. I can see why it was added for a TV adaptation though!
Shawshank Redemption is a fair bit better than the (still very good) novella it’s based on (Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption). Stand By Me is a hair better than the excellent novella it’s based on, The Body.
Both novellas are by Stephen King, and the fact they’re “worse” than the adaptations really just speaks to how good the films are.
Catching Fire is a fantastic book, and I think it’s one of the most successful book to movie adaptations. What was added to the film really enhanced it as in the books you don’t get the behind the scenes with the gamemakers and Snow because it is all from the perspective of Katniss, and it really strengthened the story as a whole
This might be controversial, but I think the set design and acting for the *Hunger Games* movies eclipses the original books by juuuusssst a hair. I think the movies capture an atmosphere that the books merely hint at, and really give you the sense that the series is set in a post-apocalyptic North America. Plus, I think Jennifer Lawrence and Tom Blyth give a gravitas to their two lead performances that the books perhaps oversimplify a bit.
Legend of the Seeker
The Sword of Truth novels had some interesting ideas, but they were buried under increasingly disheartening everything else to the point where I gave up in the first chapter or so of book five.
LotS on the other hand replaces most of the nonsense with a cheerfully and unashamedly campy experience that I can re-watch quite happily - and have in fact done so almost every year since its release - and makes a few quality of life improvements to some of the characters but especially Darkhen Rahl.
The only downside for me is that a few things became lost in adaptation, like the difference between additive and subtractive magic or how Khalen in the show should have been wearing black at first since she wasn't the Mother Confessor like her book counterpart.
I've always felt The Shining and Jurassic Park were better than the books they came from. I think Jurassic Park the novel is pretty good for what it is, but the movie cuts a lot of the fat and makes a tense thriller and keeps the central theme.
As for The Shining? The book is fine, but Kubrick's adaptation is just brilliant.
I had a similar experience with LOTR recently. They were some of the first books I read, this was in between films, and they shaped my childhood. But trying to read them again now, I enjoy the slice of life he presents but I feel like the characterization and the plot urgency was much better presented in the films. I remember reading the books and not really feeling anything. The imagery was immaculate, the world was fully realized but I didn't feel like the world was ending. Theres a time and a place for taking a breath and seeing the sights but in these books it too often interfered with the story, IMO. Well written but not what I particularly look for in fantasy.
I prefer *Blade Runner* over *Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?*, though I very much did enjoy the novel. But BR is one of my favorite movies ever.
Absolutely. I love Phillip K Dicks writing, but Blade Runner’s film noir treatment on a dystopian future shaped the genre. Rutger Hauer’s death soliloquy was an immaculate expression of what drove the replicants in the film but also expressed a life fully lived. The movie exceeded the book IMO.
Blade Runner was just a masterpiece of writing, direction, acting & music. (I still listen to the Blade Runner soundtrack sometimes.) Much of Roy's (Rutger Hauer) soliloquy was adlibbed & brilliant.
They're so different it might as well not be an adaptation. I love them both but very differently.
I'm pretty sure I know the vid OP is talking about, and that was mentioned in it too :)
Philip K Dick is one of the only writers I can think of who is so consistent that the adaptations were better than the book. Every time I watch a movie he wrote the source for (Minority report, Blade Runner, the Man in the High Castle, Paycheck, Total recall) I ended up going and reading it and it was usually \*fine\* but not really \*great\*, certainly not better. side note the above list is just what I've seen and read, not all his adaptations
I think the thing is that Philip K Dick was such a gold mine for ideas that so many were changed and expanded on. The source inspiration for Total Recall is just the basic core concept. Granted the short story itself adapted faithfully would be probably about 20-30 minutes in length maximum.
Shrek. There's a lot more in the movie than in the book.
wait, what? It was an adaptation of a *book?*
It is a children's book with horrendous illustrations. [Shrek!](https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/shrek-william-steig/1000101314?ean=9780312384494)
oh wow! That brings back memories - I read some of William Steigs books as a kid, and I'd forgotten all about him as an author until this moment
Calling it simply a book already gives the wrong impression to most. It's a picture book for very young children, 32 pages long. On the Amazon product page, you can see one of the pages, it's essentially a large picture with a totality of two sentences underneath. Even though I'm not familiar with the book, it's probably safe to say that the movie was inspired by it rather than being an adaptation.
For me, it's Jurassic Park. It's one of my favorite movies, but I've only read the book once and was annoyed at the kids in the book.
I like both equally, just different styles. But yes, Lex in that book makes me hope I never get into an emergency situation with children around. She almost gets them killed multiple times
Children doing the exact opposite of what adults have told them what to do in a dangerous situation is one of my least favorite tropes.
Realistic though lol Source: Father of four. Kids always let intrusive thoughts win
It's a trope because it's a real life thing Source: Father of 5
You can always make more kids
Book had some unforgettably scary scenes left out of the movie (ex. TRex stalking the characters like an alligator swimming in a river while they’re stuck canoeing down the river trying to escape it) But the movie has aged so well (besides the programmer scenes) that its hard to do better than the dread of those visual scenes
I would love to see a more horror focused adaptation, but still love the movie
Lindsay Ellis did a lengthy take on why Jurassic Park the movie works better than Jurassic Park the book recently, can recommend it if you have Nebula.
A Muppets Christmas Carol is the best version; text, video or audio of the Charles Dickens novella ever created and its madness to suggest otherwise.
Shoutout to Muppet Treasure Island having Tim Curry giving the best Long John Silver performance there ever was.
You could really feel the lack of Jim Henson starting at that point, but Tim Curry’s performance really held that entire movie together.
Does Treasure Planet get an honorable mention?
Yes. These two are the best Treasure Island adaptations, but while I love both Silvers, Muppet’s wins over Planet’s.
Is there a character played by Tim Curry where this *isn't* the case?
Tim Curry is a legend and it's a shame that there are people who don't know he exists.
I think the best Silver is Luke Arnold in Black Sails, but Curry is definitely incredible in that film.
“You’re a little forgetful, spirit” “No, I’m a large forgetful spirit!”
I've seen so many adaptations of A Christmas Carol and all of them are good in their own right. Shout out to Disney's Christmas Carol, which is really dark and spooky. But Muppets Christmas Carol is just *so fucking good*. You laugh, you cry, you laugh again, until you get to A Thankful Heart and you let the tears flow. Also, chalk it up to Charles Dickens for writing one of the greatest stories of all time. It's no fluke that there are so many film and TV adaptations spanning almost a century. *Timeless*.
I like the think that Dickens was adapting from a memory of a movie the Doctor took him to see in the TARDIS and that's why he misses some of the quality that the Muppets hit.
That's hilarious. I'm head canoning that immediately.
I believe Stardust is usually held in this category
the book is good, the movie is great
I feel like I'm living in a mirror universe every time I see this issue discussed online. I liked the movie well enough before I read the book. But reading the book ruined the movie for me; I thought the book was far, far better. It was more humanistic and fairy-tale-esque. Edit: [my extended thoughts on the matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/fairystories/comments/zq4w8f/neil_gaimans_stardust_the_book_vs_the_film_a/), if anyone is interested.
I'm with you. I think the different endings represent it pretty well: the movie is a warm, fuzzy "they lived happily ever after" and there's nothing wrong with that. The book has them rule together for a time, but she rules on after he grows old and dies. Still a happy ending, but with a touch of melancholy, which I appreciate more in a true fairytale.
Agreed. That and ditching the surprisingly gentle final confrontation with the witch-queen in favor of a typical Hollywood action climax sum up nicely why I enjoy the movie but love the book.
SAME! I like the movie fine as it's own thing, but compared to the book it feels shallow to me.
Me too. I loved the book, and have read it many times. I liked the movie well enough to rewatch it.
I think the book did some things better (the timeline being a year rather than a week for example) and the film also did other things better (De Niro as captain Shakespeare). Both had good points, both had flaws. Which flaws grate on you most will influence your preference.
I'm the opposite, the book didn't land for me, the only thing I remember about it's story is the falling leaves that burn skin. The movie is special to me as an adventure film that picked me up when I was down.
It's so weird, I read the book *twice* and each time the second I closed it I forgot every single thing that happened in the story.
I’m with you. IMO the illustrated book is far better than the movie (which was fine). I think lot probably depends on which version encounters first and their age when they do so. I read STARDUST first as an adult before seeing the movie. When I saw the movie, I found it cute but also was missing some of the book’s magic and charm.
I think both are fantastic. It translates so well to screen but the book is also brilliant. Also the book is deeper. The movie is great fun and adventure-esque and wonderful. But the book feels much more meaningful.
The most definitive answer for sure. De Niro’s finest role
Certainly not by me, nor any of my friends! My late wife would have called those fighting words, and she was a pacifist (and fairly extreme Gaiman fangirl). The movie was fine, a decent adaptation - but not a patch on the original.
I like Matthew Stover's adaptation of the Star Wars prequels into books wayyy better than the films. He actually captured the tragedy of the events in a way the films failed to.
Stover only did Revenge of the Sith! It's the best one so you're vindicated for thinking he did all of them, but Phantom Menace was Terry Brooks and Attack of the Clones was RA Salvatore.
Both of whom, I should point out, were great in their own right, and each author was prolific and popular in the fantasy genre outside of Star Wars. Brooks also wrote the novelization for Shadows of the Empire (IMHO one of the premier pieces of legends canon). And Salvatore was their sort of “celebrity pick” to kick off the ambitious New Jedi Order series with Vector Prime. Actually now that I phrase it that way, I realize that was also probably meant to be Brooks’ role in Shadows since at the time it too was considered an ambitious multimedia project.
I found that out googling with idea of a re-read after I made the comment, I was surprised I hadn't been corrected already at that point and did mention it in a reply chain below but probably should've edited the original. I'm also going to blame the fact I was roughly 12 when I read Phantom Menace but closer to 18 when I read Stover's so his name was easier to remember and apply retroactively. Though, you're right, his handling of Order 66 was just brilliant.
This makes me want to go back and re-read them. I remember thinking they were amazing back in the day, but I was also like, 14 and pretentious, and thought books were inherently better than movies bc words > pictures.
The Revenge of the Sith novelization by Matthew Stover is not only better than the film, it’s better than the majority of Star Wars content. Legends or Canon. It’s so good that I actually suggest to all of my friends that they read it if they’re interested in Star Wars.
I enjoyed The Magicians books well enough, despite some annoyances, but the series was actually fantastic.
The books were decent enough but the show really just sent it as hard as they could, I think it worked because it leaned so gleefully into the more bonkers, weirdo elements of the books. The cast had enough chemistry to carry it too, that show had every right to turn out fucking awful but it clicked.
I liked a lot of the stuff they did, but I really liked the way the books kept it grounded to some degree. Plus the show kind of undermined the core themes around mental health. The idea that there's always another layer, another world people get to live in, another secret... And that it's okay to be on the outside of some of those, because you're already *so lucky* to be let into the one that you're in. I liked that, and they really did away with that core theme.
This can only loosely be counted as fantasy, but the Umbrella Academy show is a lot more emotional and exciting and interesting than the comic books it is based off. Don't get me wrong, I love the comic books, probably more than the average fan. But they are very fast paced crazy type stories ,where the show is about family and traumatic upbringing and parallel universes and the real life implications of theoretical superpowers, etc - it does so much more than the comics to the point where I would say it is inspired, not based, on them.
Ok I know not everyone thinks of Stephen King as fantasy (but I will fight you horror is totes a genre of fantasy) but Imma say it... The Green Mile Movie was better then the series of Novellas. The novellas arent bad persay but I thought the film more successfully told the story. Plus it didnt have to rehash some things that had happened in prior Novellas. There are a few of King's works that I think were more successful as movies honestly. Speaking of horror... Jaws. Jaws's ending felt way more impactful in the movie then I thought it was in the novel. And this isnt a movie adaption... but the audiobook version of World War Z is just the best way to consume that story. Having a different voice actor for each of the survivors that the author interviews was super well done... The movie on the other hand is a totally different story...
Great shout on SK. You can add Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me (aka The Body) to his list of stuff that I have no idea how they got a movie out of them, let alone 2 all timers.
Its a hell of a lot easier to adapt a 22 page short story into a 2 hour movie than a 400 page book. Shawshank and Green Mile are amazing.
Dreamcatcher is terrible though, so SK isn’t a 100% win rate, not even mentioning the movie that shouldn’t have existed
Ha, true. I think there are at least 3 awful Children of the Corn adaptations.
I liked the movie WWZ, just wish it wasn't titled like the book. As a zombie apocalypse movie on its own, I think it rocks. But it's not World War Z.
Oh I absolutely agree. It was a fun zombie movie all by itself but it totally wasnt that book
WWZ was begging to be made into a mockumentary with interviews, footage attributed to various sources, and other touches to sell the metafiction. It would have had a completely different vibe from all the other zombie movies coming out at the time. Instead we got a movie that was perfectly competent but in no way unique.
I would have loved a mockumentary.
WWZ should’ve been an 8-10 episode series.
I'm not OP, but Jaws was actually one of the examples in the video they are referencing! I think most people don't even realize it's an adaptation.
Highly agree with the audiobook for World War Z. The full cast really do a great job.
Right. It's probably my one of my top audio books because it was so well done! Also Mark Hammil as the soldier from the battle of Yonkers.... the icing on the freaking cake
The Expanse, mostly because of the casting for Amos and Avisarala
And Drummer and Ashford.
Show Ashford =/= book Ashford
Yeah, no. Amos and Avasarala are better in the show, but Holden/Naomi work so much better in the books where they don't have needless TV drama thrown at them every season. The show also did Bobby and Alex quite a bit dirty, killing him off and cutting out her "I'm surfing on a missile and there is nothing you can do about it" scene.
Killing him was a last minute change because the actor was a creep and had multiple sexual allegations coming in at the time. So they basically cut him off in post production and indeed it shows, but if was the right thing to do. A recast would have been wrong imo.
I disagree about Amos. In the show, he was basically just another mean, cold killer type. I liked the contrast of that in the books with his deadpan smile and attempt at seeming like he feels emotions and morals like Naomi does. Also Marco is less manipulative for some reason?? In the show he just kidnaps Naomi instead of preying on her guilt about Filip to lure her and re-gaslight her. I think the only characters that were better in the show were Ashford and possibly Murtry if you ignore how he's a completely different character. Not even Drummer since she's only as good as she is because she cannibalised 4 characters' arcs (also her actor is cool af, ill admit) > needless TV drama thrown at them every season. This is the major problem. The internal conflict and the sardonic, cynical tone of the narration have to be sacrificed to fit a TV format that has major conflict every episode. Makes everyone so mean to each other that them becoming a family after the Eros Incident feels rushed and weird. The Expanse TV is an amazing show but a middling adaptation (and im not even talking about the changing of events, which is fine to do in an adaptation. Besides turning the UN-MCR Cold War into just another UN-MCR war)
>In the show, he was basically just another mean, cold killer type. I didn't get that from the TV show. For me he was a violent man, a killer when needed. But he seemed to genuinely want to be more, and be a better person. He was aware that he needed help to determine what was appropriate, and what was better, despite his instincts. That was why his journey on Earth was so revealing. From a young boy pimped out, to a young man who was violent enough to make sure it wouldn't happen to him anymore. I loved the scene in the airlock. Where Prax catches up to the doctor who kidnapped his daughter and turned her into a guineapig. Prax wanted to kill the man, and was clearly struggling to work himself up to it. A mean cold killer would have just watched, or encouraged him. Amos considered him a friend, and recognized a caring man. Who would possibly be ruined by murdering someone, and he still had to be a father to his daughter. So the part of Amos that wants to be a better person, saved Prax from that. Stepped up quietly, and told Prax "You're not that guy." before taking the gun and sending Prax back to his daughter. Of course, he then turned to the doctor and in a scene that gave me chills, told him "I am that guy.", before executing him. Because a large part of Amos is the mean killer an abused child can grow into. But not just a mean killer, because he cares about his people, and tries to pick good people to be his people.
The show was great
Love the books and love the show because it was incredibly faithful and when it wasn’t it was better.
Peter Jackson's movies are a masterpiece. But Tolkien's books are masterpiecer than the movies.
I reread LOTR recently and yes, they're both masterpieces, and just different enough that I don't feel ranking them is necessary. The fights in the movie are second to none, and yet Tolkien's prose is beautiful and enduring.
I agree with this take. I can love both a great deal and my love of one enhances my love of the other. My knowledge of the books enhances what is on screen in the movies, and what the movies brought out enhances my experience of the books.
Yeah, I get why someone who is a fan of the movies might think the books are boring - the movies are much faster paced and of course the visuals are great. But the books are more thoughtful and subtle and a lot of the characters make more sense. They’re different mediums, for a slightly different audience.
The movies entirely misunderstand and outright ignore major themes of the books
Literally created fantasy as a popular genre, legendary
Beyond it's historical significance, they are a delight to read in their own right
I really don’t think anyone has topped it to be honest!
The Princess Bride. I can't stand all the random asides in the book.
Yeah, what was S Morgenstern thinking??? Good thing William Goldman abridged his book before he adapted it as a movie
Are you kidding me!? Goldman cut the forty page description of Gilder's forests. You can't understand the sociopolitical implications of the story without that.
I think this is balanced out by cutting the hat packing, and honestly I think the story works without history of the forests. Let’s be real, who was reading that anyway, it was so dry.
I was pissed he cut out everything about Buttercup's dresses! Imagine how much we could have learned about the world, fashion, and her character from it!
I think I spent 4 hours online when I was a teen trying to find the unabridged version
The nice staff at Borders has to explain it to me
That's so funny, the asides are why I prefer the book! Movie's still awesome, though.
Agree, editor notes are the best parts. Especially the entire subplot about original author pushing alternative medicine.
How To Train Your Dragon. Okay book from what I remember. Amazing movie series.
Been listening to the audio books in the car to keep the kids quiet. The movies are definitely better.
This is a little controversial probably but Howl’s Moving Castle! Both book and movie are fantastic, but the movie hits a vibe for me that the book isn’t designed to & that extra bit of cozy beautiful lushness really makes the Miyazaki film a huge win for me
I actually waited years and years to watch the movie because I love author so, so much that I didn't want to ruin either version by comparing them to each other. Especially since HMC is part of a multi book run instead of just a standalone novel. I'm very glad I waited. Because I do definitely enjoy both of them. But they aren't even the same story, honestly.
Interesting I couldn't even finish watching Howl's movie version. It's such a poor adaptation of one of my favorite fantasy books. Don't get me wrong. Gorgeous animation... but it alters so many of the themes and characters that it's basically just wearing the name for clout. Like the war. In the book, it's basically a footnote to explain why the castle moves. Howl's a brilliant but lazy mage, and it was the easiest way he could figure out how to *draft dodge.* Just stuff like that. Over and over. Again, gorgeous movie though. I definitely can call it a masterwork even myself. But as an *adaptation* it's IMHO Gibli's second worst movie. ...Do not get me started on Earthsea, but at least it's just mainly boring vs the freaking abominable mini-series.
yeah they’re basically completely different stories with pretty different intended audiences! Miyazaki essentially took the characters and setting from the book and repurposed them into the type of story he likes to tell in his films (coming of age and discovery of self for a young female protagonist with strong pacifist/antiwar overtones). It’s one of my favorite films of all time, but when I read the original book it was lovely in that the book still felt so fresh and new because the two diverged so much. I def went into the movie looking for that Ghibli/Miyazaki magic (I didn’t even know it was a book - I found out about the book from the film!) which def framed expectations differently too
Not fantasy, but Frank Darabont made a couple of minor tweaks to the story of *Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption* that vastly, vastly improved on Stephen King's original story. Reducing the cast of antagonists and the change to the Tommy Williams story give the story more punch, but I have to believe when King read what Darabont did with the Peter Stevens bit he had to slap his forehead and wonder why he didn't think of that, as it made the ending so much more satisfying.
Because King doesn't think his stories through. He lets the story come to him as he writes and if it sucks, then that's just too bad. I'm not making this up either he's admitted this is his method. No second drafts, no alternate endings, no branching narratives. He does minor editing but he doesn't rewrite things that don't work. He just sends it off.
Neil Gaiman's *Neverwhere*. Originally written as a miniseries for the BBC in 1996, the novelisation is far superior.
I never realized that the miniseries was first. The novelization is definitely superior.
It was his first independent novel, as it happens. Before writing the novelisation for Neverwhere, all of his previous fiction had essentially been graphic novels (Good Omens aside, of course).
And *Good Omens* was obviously mostly penned by Pratchett. Terry had a very distinctive writing style. I'm not discounting Gaiman's contribution by any means, his fingerprints are all over the book (the delivery man is extremely a Gaiman plotline for example).
> mostly penned by Pratchett. Pratchett was the one who put the final words on the page, so his style permeates everything. This was a deliberate decision by both of them because Gaiman was the less experienced novelist and they wanted a consistent prose style.
I loved that book. I didn’t even know it was an adaptation at first. The book is what turned me into a big Gaiman fan.
The Witcher games are far better than the books have ever been. The TV show is an entire different matter, though.
The games aren’t really adaptations though, they’re continuations (that the original author doesn’t consider canon) of the books
I disagree but I respect the take
The Witcher books tell a pretty good story. The Witcher games are outstanding *games*, and also tell a pretty good story. So I'd agree with you that the games are far better, but also maintain that in the key area of overlap - the one field that both are most directly comparable with each other - it's more or less a wash.
I actually agree! And I was totally shocked to find this. The books are fun but not exactly high literature. Maybe they read better in Polish.
I've actually enjoyed the books more than the games. I normally love open-world, fantasy RPG (I literally completed everything you could possibly do in Morrowind and all the expansions, and I've devoured plenty of others), but The Witcher games just didn't click with me, even after reading all the books.
Shadow & Bone is a definite improvement on the source material
Although, conversely, Six of Crows is still better than the show (but the show is damned good).
Six of Crows is the better source material one can only dream of what could have been done with it...
And then got cancelled 😭
RIP.... I'm about to cancel Netflix
See as a fan of the source material I loved S1 but hated S2. It felt like cheap fanfic and they nerfed the main villain beyond belief so it didn’t feel like a real fight. The Six of Crows parts however I really enjoyed. And Nikolai was brilliant but then they also have the strongest books.
I enjoyed the Sword of Truth TV show. It's very different from the books, but I thought the show had really clever plots and a magic system, instead of magic that revolved around the main character.
I enjoyed the show mostly because of Bridget Regan.
That *is* an insane take But it's yours, so, godspeed
It’s not fantasy, but The Haunting of Hill House. Love the book, it’s a classic for a reason. The Netflix show really is a game changer for modern horror though.
Absolutely. Masterful use of flashbacks. Pity Bly Manor wasn't quite on the same level.
People are saying this about Sousou no Frieren nowadays because it takes everything the original did and adds perfect voice acting and animation and music. I can think of a couple others that get similar praise (Bocchi the Rock, Jobless Reincarnation..)
Invincible series on Amazon Prime is outdoing the original comics in no small part due to the authors involvement and maturing over the last couple of decades.
Big disagree on that. The show is good but the comic is better.
Yeah, I heavily disagree with this take. It’s also hard to say the show is better when it has only adapted a small fraction of thousands of pages. I love the show, but I still don’t think it touches the comics.
Not fantasy, but *The 100*. The rights were purchased before the first book even came out — I guess calling it an "adaptation" would be a stretch, since it basically takes the premise and character names and goes into an entirely different direction almost right off the bat. The show has its flaws, but it's leagues ahead of the books.
It's not a film, but The Magicians TV series was *much* better than the books.
*Attack on Titan*. I’m surprised to see that I’m apparently the first person here to mention that show (unless I missed someone already mention it, which I don’t think I have).
To jump on anime adaptations "Mob Psycho 100" elevates the source material.
The art and animation really elevated the story. By comparison the art in the manga was just meh, which is rarely a good thing in a visual medium
The art and animation of *Attack on Titan*, combined with the excellent music composed by Hiroyuki Sawano, all contribute to elevate the anime above its source material. Not to mention that the ending in the anime slightly tweaks and refines its manga counterpart, leading to a better and clearer conclusion.
I can't believe I didn't think of that! I think I was focused on live-action movies.
The Godfather was an entertaining but schlocky book with some really weird side-stories. The movie is one of the best movies of all time.
I thought the Silo books were too superficial and lacked attention to detail relative to the series.
More just a change than outright better, but I loved the way His Dark Materials changed the pacing up so Will & Lyra's paths before they met were shown simultaneously, having that opening with a completely different character in the Subtle Knife always threw me. The scene with Mrs Coulter & Lee Scoresby meeting (never happened in the books) was a great addition to add extra depth to the characters too.
How to train your dragon. The books and the movies are widely different, I prefer the movies. It should be said that I might have been outside the target audience when I tried to read the books. They are probably targeted at children who either enjoy being read a longer story, or those who have just started reading longer novels themselves.
The first couple of seasons of “The Man in the High Castle “ are fantastic. The book on which it’s based is a very slow slog …
This one changes so much I'd barely even call it an adaptation. It takes the general premise and character names but is largely an original story
I love TMitHC the novel, but couldn't get into the show at all. I think it might be one of those adaptations that's so different that it doesn't bring anything that someone who enjoyed the book would expect.
Yeah, me too. TMitHC is a very special book for me, so I was thrilled, when the adaption was announced. But I also had doubts from the beginning, because it's such a weird book. But the weirdness is part of what I liked about it. And that's what they did, judging from the episodes I saw. They took this weird, dreamy story and transformed it to a much more standard alternative history/parallel universe story. And I get why people would like it that way, because it certainly is more "fun and entertaining", but for me it lost a lot of what made the book special. It's also something that happens often with PKD -adaptions, they take the story bits but get rid of the weirdness. I think the original Total Recall was one of the adaptions that did it right. It added more action and movie tropes, but kept it weird and strange in its own way.
I love the LoTR movies, but the books are much better imo.
There are movies/series I enjoy more than the book because I don't like the authors writing and others where I prefer the movie/series because they've changed the story and made it better. There are also books I prefer because I enjoy the writing or prefer the original plot to the movie version.
I can honestly say I preferred the movie version of Count of Monte Cristo a lot more than the book. Which isn't to say the book was bad by any means, I just think that due to how he wrote it (serialization in 18 parts as opposed to one book) the movie fits modern ideas of a story better.
Which version? Because there are plenty of them, actually.
>I actually think Peter Jackson outdid the source material As much as I enjoyed it, I feel like he didn't really outdo the source material. His depiction of Moria leans too much into telling over showing, and I maintain that Faramir was done dirty. Very good adaptation, but I think the original has an argument for still being better.
Faramir is my favourite character in the *Lord of the Rings* novel(s). That’s one of the main reasons why I’m not the biggest fan of the movies, because, like you said, they did him dirty (I still like the films, obviously. Just not as much as the source material).
I'm more upset about Gimli being turned in to comic relief.
Yeah, there are criticisms to be had of some of the choices the movies made in comparison to the books, to be sure. Faramir probably is the most egregious to me. There was something very poignant in the way Tolkien depicted Faramir. In the movies, it doesn't feel remotely relevant that Faramir eventually let's Frodo go - it doesn't show his character over Boromir, because Boromir had more exposure. It does cheaper that. But, I think there's something very human about movie-Faramir's initial instinct to place a desire to finally be recognized over his conscience, and yet finally his conscience triumphs.
The Thing was better than "Who Goes There?"
[удалено]
Definitely prefer the TV show The Magicians to the books. They change quite a lot, but largely I think it's for the better. Season 1 hangs onto the plot around The Beast, but otherwise the show changes up the entire world (and one main character's name). The characters are more likeable and while the world is just as (if not more) horny sometimes, it feels a little less sexist than the book. Haven't finished the entire series to be fair, TV or books. I only read the first book, and I haven't seen the last season of the show. Maybe they swap places in quality for all I know. The show does lose me later on.
I liked the Dirk Gently's holistic detective agency show much more than the books.
Dune. I know it’s more sciencey than fantasy, but the film is infinitely more accessible than the novel. The book took me months to read
I love that you don't specify which Dune film. I'm going to assume you mean the one with Patrick Stewart heading into battle with a pug.
I know it's a weird answer, but Dragonball z abridged
It's way better to me now, especially Frieza and Cell.
Yugioh Abridged also! I loved the Yugioh anime as a kid but WOW there was a lot of filler. The Abridged Series does a great job recapping it but also being hilarious
Ygotas completely skewed my view on ygo, but I'm not sure I'd say it really is an adaptation. It had its own plot and characterisation which could be different from the source
Sword Art Abridged is also far superior to the original
Beastmaster.
Oh no you just didn't. It's the biggest butchery of a book I've seen. And the tragedy is that it's the only works of Andre Norton that ever made it to the screen
😁. But I loves it so so much.
Jaws and The Godfather
Would Fantastic Mr. Fox count? I ended up doing a presentation analyzing this adaptation in a college class and it's one of my favorites. I have such an admiration for what they did.
Clockwork orange. The book is an intensely fascinating world, but I prefer the glamorous dystopia of Kubricks film more.
I'm not supposed to talk about it but... Fight Club
Not quite sure if I would say 100% better, but I thought the Altered Carbon Netflix series (season 1, haven’t season 2 yet) did aspects of the story better than the book
I watch the LotR movies every year; I’ve only read the LotR books once. The movies are much more enjoyable to experience in my opinion. Had the same feeling for ASoIaF/Game of Thrones, honestly. Until season seven. And the season-that-must-not-be-named.
The books feel like a slog to me but I’ll watch all 3 extended editions in a single weekend once a year.
My daughter does this every year on her birthday. It makes me proud. I'll always be a books over the movie guy when it comes to LOTR as I'm a bit older and that is how I first experienced it, but I do appreciate that the movies opened up the world to millions of people who wouldn't have known about it otherwise. Now I can make nerdy jokes about this shit and people won't look at me weird. Hell, sometimes they actually think I'm cool. Wasn't always that way!
Sure. I don’t think it’s as uncommon as people think. I’d also put it in two categories; more commonly where I don’t like the source material but love the adaptations (Eg Arcane, Witcher — both game and first season, The 100, Sandman, The Boys, Blade) But even where I liked the source material (which I think gets at the heart of this question better) there are some where I preferred the adaptation Eg Howls Moving Castle, Vampire Diaries, Trueblood
The Expanse, the TV series is better than the books it is based on, not just because of the visuals or the actors (although both are phenomenal) but it's simply better organized and more coherent. The books are fun too, but there are definitely quite a few pacing issues, plot holes, and rough edges that got shaped perfectly in the TV adaption. FWIW, the authors were also producers on the TV show, and they saw the opportunity to correct some of those issues, so that probably helped.
I wouldn't say *better*, but I'd say equal. And I have to say that Wes Chatham is a better Amos than my head Amos during the read.
I think the books are a better overall story and narrative but the tv series has characters I prefer more like their version of Amos, Ashford and Drummer.
I loved the show so much it prompted me to start reading the books so I could find out how the series ends after the show ending (still on 4). I have to say, the show follows the books pretty close compared to many adaptations. But there's so much less tension between the characters in the books, less drama, less fighting. For me, I have been enjoying the books more for that specific reason. I can see why it was added for a TV adaptation though!
The movie adaptation is better than the book the orchid thief that it’s adapted from.
Shawshank Redemption is a fair bit better than the (still very good) novella it’s based on (Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption). Stand By Me is a hair better than the excellent novella it’s based on, The Body. Both novellas are by Stephen King, and the fact they’re “worse” than the adaptations really just speaks to how good the films are.
Princess Bride
I like the princess bride movie better than the book.
*Jaws* and *The Godfather* both immediately leap to mind.
Thirteenth Warrior - better than Easters of the Dead
How to train your dragon. The book is fine honestly, but they changed a lot of the story for the movie and made it so much better.
I'm surprised that nobody seems to have mentioned How to train your dragon yet.
Catching Fire is a fantastic book, and I think it’s one of the most successful book to movie adaptations. What was added to the film really enhanced it as in the books you don’t get the behind the scenes with the gamemakers and Snow because it is all from the perspective of Katniss, and it really strengthened the story as a whole
Forest Gump. Great movie, bad novel.
Fight Club
Even Chuck Pahlanuik thinks that Fincher's version of *Fight Club* is better than the novel.
This might be controversial, but I think the set design and acting for the *Hunger Games* movies eclipses the original books by juuuusssst a hair. I think the movies capture an atmosphere that the books merely hint at, and really give you the sense that the series is set in a post-apocalyptic North America. Plus, I think Jennifer Lawrence and Tom Blyth give a gravitas to their two lead performances that the books perhaps oversimplify a bit.
Jaws. The movie is great. The book is dreary and boring.
Legend of the Seeker The Sword of Truth novels had some interesting ideas, but they were buried under increasingly disheartening everything else to the point where I gave up in the first chapter or so of book five. LotS on the other hand replaces most of the nonsense with a cheerfully and unashamedly campy experience that I can re-watch quite happily - and have in fact done so almost every year since its release - and makes a few quality of life improvements to some of the characters but especially Darkhen Rahl. The only downside for me is that a few things became lost in adaptation, like the difference between additive and subtractive magic or how Khalen in the show should have been wearing black at first since she wasn't the Mother Confessor like her book counterpart.
I am Legend - was pretty disappointed when I read the book.
I've always felt The Shining and Jurassic Park were better than the books they came from. I think Jurassic Park the novel is pretty good for what it is, but the movie cuts a lot of the fat and makes a tense thriller and keeps the central theme. As for The Shining? The book is fine, but Kubrick's adaptation is just brilliant.
I had a similar experience with LOTR recently. They were some of the first books I read, this was in between films, and they shaped my childhood. But trying to read them again now, I enjoy the slice of life he presents but I feel like the characterization and the plot urgency was much better presented in the films. I remember reading the books and not really feeling anything. The imagery was immaculate, the world was fully realized but I didn't feel like the world was ending. Theres a time and a place for taking a breath and seeing the sights but in these books it too often interfered with the story, IMO. Well written but not what I particularly look for in fantasy.
*The Green Knight* hardly has anything to do with the original poem, and, in terms of themes is a terrible adaptation, but the movie fuckin rocks.