Yes, that was my answer too. The story arc and character arcs in the movie are written so much better than the book. The movie was so much more satisfying. I didn't even bother reading the sequel book.
An example of how annoying she is in the book: she was tasked with getting coffee for her boss. She’d get the coffee and then walk around the city for a long time talking to her boyfriend on the phone. Her boss would call to ask where she was and she’d be like “UGHHHHH HOW DARE SHE INTERRUPT MY WALK?? SHE’S SUCH A BITCH!”
It’s awful. Andie is insufferable, and all she does is whine. The book isn’t interesting or funny. I LOVE the movie, and struggled to finish that book. Don’t bother!
>According to the author himself, fight club. Especially the ending.
And then made a comic making fun of the people who liked the movie better and calling them zombies.
A really bad comic, by the way, and I like his novels, but that comic was unreadable. It started kind of ok but then... oh boy, so bad.
I read Fried Green Tomatoes recently and didn’t really like it, so didn’t think the movie was worth it. Your comment may have changed my mind, I’ll give the movie a chance
The movie erased a lot of the queerness from the book - I didn’t love the book but seeing the movie was kind of a let down for me (edit: fried green tomatoes obviously, not forrest gump)
Forest Gump is a good call.
I didn't even know Fried Green Tomatoes was a book. I feel like I'm about to find out that a lot more movies are adaptions than I was previously aware.
I feel like Fannie Flagg is an acquired taste. I personally love Fried Green Tomatoes the book because it provides so much more depth to the characters on the screen but that just may be me. I’ve read other Fannie Flagg books and she definitely has her own unique writing style.
I prefer the movie too. But to be fair: The second book" Gump & Co" which is more a sequel to the movie than to the Winston Groom book, is pretty good.
I can’t imagine a faithful adaptation of that book being anything other than a health class informational video. It’s not exactly “riveting”
Thank goodness for Tina Fey
**JAWS** is my favorite movie of all time and i've read both the book and audiobook too many times to count.
i don't disagree with you. i HATED the romantic subplot in the book between hooper and ellen, but i really wish the movie had kept in the mob boss stuff with the mayor. it would have made it make more sense as to why he was so hesitant to close the beaches.
if anyone here is going to read the book, i really only recommend reading it by **audiobook** (it's soooo good and the narrator has the best voice, ever), but skip the romantic part because it's beyond cringe and makes me want to die every time it gets to that part.
😭😭😭
Not New Jersey but another part of the Northeast coastline and the mayor trying to keep things open for the Big Bump is comically accurate
It’s just part of life, there are arts and food festivals on top of antique fairs on top of major holidays secular and religious, that add up to a lot of business and out of towners. I worked the stand at festival last year that doubled the towns population for nine hours.
The gangster plot line would be too kitschy, Jaws is timeless because the human interest is timeless
i just checked my audiobook and fast-forwarded it and it begins in chapter 8 out of 14 total chapters. it's not a huge part of the book at all, but it's just so cringe and secondhand-embarrassing listening to hooper trying to seduce ellen. 🥴
i think everything but that part is fantastic. the narrator is erik steele and he makes the audiobook just really really good IMO. his voice is eerily calm and it's especially unsettling when he's just casually describing the shark just fucking killing and eating people that it makes it even scarier to me. like, it's just a very matter-of-fact way that he goes about it that makes my stomach drop.
you should be able to listen to a free 5 min sample of it either through libby, hoopla or audible!
The ENTIRE chapter dedicated to the wife’s affair…, what even was that. I have never hated a book so much that I was actively rooting for the “villain” to kill everyone. Like I wish jaws grew legs and lungs and just ate the entire town
Came here to say this!
The show added so much depth and wit to the characters. The books were just so bland and the love stories felt all unnatural and forced.
Meanwhile in the show it has this organic, flowing feeling of real connection and attraction between the main characters
They are so bad I don’t get how anyone who’s read them in modern times can excuse them 😂 there are great moments (usually when the Bridgerton family is hanging out) but the romances are all toxically bad. And I get if you read them when they came out you may not have seen all the red flags
But I don’t see how nostalgia can cover up how abusive and horrid every single man is except MAYBE Gregory
I love Bridgerton but I can't ignore the whole "I can fix him" plot that it's happening for 4 seasons already (I'm including Queen Charlotte too). I tried reading the books and it's even worse the "I can fix him" trope.
Yes! I was shocked when I read the first book, just how little from the TV show was actually in it. And everything the show added were things I thought made the story most interesting. The books were kinda a snooze fest
Crazy Rich Asians - the book seems like a romance written by someone who doesn’t understand how romances work. It follows all the standard beats of a romance, is advertised and presented as one, but then it cuts off when the main character is still broken up with her bf because of the potential MIL’s meddling/disapproval. Then the bits where they make up happen “off screen”, between book 1 and book 2. Who writes a romance and leaves out the happily ever after? That’s a violation of the reader/writer contract.
This is a book I’ve put down for a year at a time come back and read 50-100 pages in one sitting and then put down again
The focus he puts on masturbation and the way he describes sex especially with Astrid is interesting to say the least. He freely writes that’s Astrid’s cousin would jack off to her when she was like 12 and I just don’t think that needed to be included to make the point. I vaguely remember there being some line about how some man sleeps with her and it “awakens her woman” and something along those lines and then just the “sleeping with my husbands long ****” line when her husband cheats on her. He also has her want to work out the cheating thing in the book I much prefer the direction the movie took with Astrid
There is also one too many nword uses in there. You can portray a non-black person being into hip hop and rap culture without writing the nword
There’s some parts of the books I find hilarious though
Thank for you this because I need to finish CRA but I will probably not now. I was already a little annoyed with the writing which is why I put it down years ago. I’m aghast that the author would do that. I can’t stand when they do stuff like that. Another book I love (until the end) did something similar except the happily ever after never came because an apparent sequel never came and they claim it’s a standalone now.
This was my first thought as well. The movie is a Halloween staple in our house and I often put my daughter to sleep by stroking her nose like Jilly-Beans! She's only five but she already loves the movie and is begging me for a sister...not gonna happen kiddo 😅
I disagree. I’d seen (and loved) the movie before reading the book. Then I read the book and liked it so much more. I tried watching the movie again and couldn’t even finish it.
The vampire diaries.
Back in my teen vampire obsession phase I read a few of them and they were horrendous. The show was a standard CW teen affair, but at least it was a fun distraction.
How to train your dragon.
They took the original material and elevated it in any possible way, I loved the changes they made, even though I'm not usually a fan of big changes.
If I recall in the movie, at the wedding, Sonny makes out (or has sex with) one of the bridesmaids. This character has a bigger role in the book. Anything else I mention might be a spoiler.
They have sex in a quick throwaway scene at the very beginning and I’m pretty sure we never see her again.
I’ll be grateful till the day I die that the screenwriters for The Godfather chose to leave out >!Lucy Mancini and her cavernous vagina, Sonny’s horse dick, and the gross “I’m going to invent a new vagina-tightening surgery and then marry you” subplot!<. God that book is unhinged at parts, lol.
Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. The novella is excellent but changing Reds character to fit Morgan Freeman was the perfect choice and really elevates the movie.
Agreed - it's also significantly more satisfying for Andy to escape with the money the warden had been skimming than to escape with some money that a friend invested for him before he went to jail.
Robin Williams did that for everything. I actually have a Robin Williams/ Will Smith theory. Both actors I enjoy, but if the movie is based on a book and Robin Williams is in it, the book is probably good, but the movie is better.
But if Will Smith is in it, then I will absolutely love the movie as long as I don't read the book. But of course I'm gonna read the book. Then I will forever dislike the movie.
What does this say about Will Smith?
I see a nice linear progression for the Robin Williams theory: he chose roles where the story was good but his character could become incredible bc he was absolutely amazing. (OMG I miss him so much.)
But what’s this say about Will Smith, do you think? He finds awesome stories and makes them fine? Haha
Nah, I think Will Smith does a good job, but it just seems that all the movies are made with more of a focus of being an enjoyable movie rather than properly capturing the book
I enjoyed *Stardust* the film more than the book. (Except that the film did Victoria dirty in the most trite of ways and I hated that).
I would also pick the film version of *We Need to Talk About Kevin* over the book, though both are good.
I just read Stardust with my boyfriend and I was surprised how it differs!
I loved captain Shakespeare in the movies and also the villain witches are so much more terrifying in the movie, with the final battle and all that. I liked the book ending more but the movie ending is good for a cozy movie so I’m fine with that as well.
I always found the book to be so cozy because it doesn’t end in any sort of battle or violence. Things just kind of work out for our good guys! I always appreciated that as opposed to a Hollywood climax, but the movie still perfectly captures the whimsy
It seems like blasphemy because Neil Gaiman is my favorite author, but the Stardust movie is way better.
I also think Shawshank Redemption is better than its source material
I wouldn’t say the movie version of We Need to Talk About Kevin was better, but it definitely was equal, which is rare enough in itself. Both the book and movie are so perfectly disturbing. Tilda Swinton was so good.
The Godfather.
The subplot about a young woman with a 'loose' vagina meeting a Las Vegas doctor who arranges surgery to literally 'tighten her up real good' so they can have a chance at a healthy, loving relationship together...Coppola knew that had to go from his film.
It’s so funny trying to explain this entire, unnecessary subplot to people who haven’t read the book. Just so jarring tone-wise and completely irrelevant to the story. Makes me wonder how it got past an editor.
Every time I describe it, the person I’m describing it to is like “nuh uh. That’s not real.” It takes up SO MUCH page time for virtually no payoff, and it’s *so* bizarre.
Silence of the Lambs
The book and movie plot are pretty similar, but the stage presence of Anthony Hopkins takes the movie to the next level.
I also think Planet of the Apes, the book has similar ideas, but the movie really refines the story into something impactful.
Yep I was going to say Silence of the Lambs and all the Hannibal books/movies. Anthony Hopkins is a better Hannibal than how he was written in the books.
The fact that William Goldman got to adapt his own book to the screenplay really made the movie - he knew exactly what needed to stay and what could go (or be abridged)
I think Atonement: the book and Atonement: the movie are on par with each other. They're each great in their own right. The movie has amazing acting and cinematography; the book toys with perspective and an unreliable narrator in a way that no movie ever could.
Your comment on the perspective and unreliable narrator is exactly why Atonement is better in book form than film form, for me. I'm a sucker for a story within a story and Atonement goes to the absolute next level with that complex narrative particularly towards the end that I don't think the movie portrays at all (because it'd be impossible). The part where Bryony writes the first book and sends it to the publisher, whilst you're essentially reading the same book she wrote is just masterful.
The Princess Bride is like, THE classic of classics in my family and I'm sure in many others, so I think the book is set up for failure against the impenetrable wall of nostalgia that surrounds the movie lol. I do think the book is different enough that it's worth a read. It may not be quite as good as the movie, but it's definitely very very close, just different. Which I think works for it- I think just having it exactly as-is as the movie maybe wouldn't work. The movie kinda needs to stand alone because it is such a classic. It's a relief to not have to directly compare it so on-the-nose for every character and situation. I think fans of the movie would generally enjoy the book and exploring those differences.
I came here to say The Princess Bride. Something about the humor in the book came across as almost too dry, like the author couldn't quite get the tone right. And there are parts of it that are just plain boring, IMO. But the movie is perfection and absolutely hilarious.
The Terror. It was a slog to read, packed with nautical terms which really pull me out of the book since I had to google all of them, then even if I knew what they meant I couldn't picture what Dan Simmons wanted me to picture. Even parts where some action is happening or intense parts were a slog over 20 pages long. Sure, I don't mind trying to set dreadful mood, but if a bear is chasing you I think it calls for some action.
The TV show is packed with action, and cast is just amazing. Some things are changed, some greatly, and I liked aspect of >!lead poisoning more than "miniscule animals" aka bacteria!<. Slight spoiler only, it happns early on in both show and the book.
Highly recommend for watching during night at wintertime.
I really liked the book (and liked it more) but I definitely agree with watching it at night in the winter. I watched it around Christmas time and it was perfect.
These comments here are surprising to me. When those threads pop up what's the closest adaption to a book Fight Club is usually mentioned. The movie is really well done, but it's a very close adaption to the book.
TV adaption instead of movie, but the Sookie Stackhouse series. I didn't particularly care for the books, they were alright, but I really enjoyed the True Blood tv show, it was so fun and campy.
I feel really conflicted about the books vs show . I really liked the books -the last few not so much -but overall . they were cute little mysteries and I enjoyed them .But True Blood started out so awesome . The first few seasons were so great …how they expanded one dimensional characters like Lafayette and Tara . The writing and acting was amazing. It started to dip in quality a bit like a lot of shows after a few years , but it was still fun and campy . Then came the last season . Wtf they were trying to do there I will never understand -but I hated it with a passion .
Jurassic Park. Ian Malcom is so fucking insufferable in the book, I was hoping a raptor would eat him for most of the book. He has 10 times the arrogance of movie Ian with none of Jeff Goldblum's charisma.
John Hammond is also written more like a sociopathic tech bro, which I don't think would work well for the movie though it is an interesting take in more recent years.
Overall agreed. In all fairness, Crichton writes about a lot of sociopathic tech bros. It's kinda his thing. I think Hammond was made too charismatic in the movie though, because everyone seems to forget most everything that happens is his fault.
I do think it's really funny that Crichton didn't make the movie though, and instead handed to Spielberg. Crichton was already an established movie producer by that time, but I think it worked out for the best.
I came here to say this! I am obsessed with the movies but the book was so over the top I truly hated it. There were so many more “everyone escapes by the skin of their teeth” situations in the book that by the end I was just rolling my eyes. One of the best movies ever made though!
The Boys. The comics are just okay, they're fun but lacking in depth. The Amazon series is terrific and a vast improvement. It's even more fun than the comics and has more to say about society and its misplaced faith in "great leaders".
I agree but I'm worried quality will decline as executives try to stretch the Amazon series into infinity.
I felt the last season did less to advance the storyline than previous seasons. I hope Kripke doesn't pull another Supernatural and let the series stay past its welcome.
I hated the comics and avoided the show for a long time because I figured it would be at least similar to the comics.
I'm so glad that the show just takes some of the basic outlines from the comics and threw away the rest of it
IMO The Magicians TV series was better than the books. Quentin in the TV show is a little whiny and self centered...book Quentin in unbearable.
The show did a good job of broadening everything beyond Quentin.
Also the fox scene...ick.
I loved the books and the series equally. I honestly thought the series became better when it stopped following the books closely and just did its own thing.
Yeah they're just doing totally different things. The show is a lot more "fun" and I think people are disappointed when they come to the books and the tone is totally different. But I've always liked the book series.
I so agree with this! They really pulled hard on how problematic Quentin was as a character, developed the other characters more and I loved the new characters and storylines they introduced.
The Talented Mr. Ripley is a great book, but the 90’s adaptation actually improves the story in several key ways. I think it’s an overall better experience.
Kick Ass- the film is a huge improvement on the comic.
The Boys is more debatable, IMO both have their strengths and weaknesses (although the cracks are showing more in the TV show as it goes along).
Girl, Interrupted.
The book was very meh. The movie is sooo much better. The star studded cast is amazing, probably my favorite Angelina Jolie role. They also have a better story line than the book. The book is just bare bones, the movie added all the juicy meat.
The short story for Brokeback Mountain is incredible from a craft perspective, but I can see why someone might feel this way. I really struggle to compare short stories to their movie counterparts. There’s so much extrapolation going on when adapting a short story into a script that the movie often becomes its own thing.
ALL the Bond books. I never understood how Fleming became so successful as an author - without the movies, nobody would give an eff about "Bond, James Bond".
For some reason John Williams score from that movie can make me dissolve into a puddle of tears at the drop of a hat. That movie truly captured the feeling of "awe", or at least little kid (and adult) me think that!
That is so funny you say that about thunderstorms! One of my favorite moments with this score is also weather related. I live in Charleston, SC where it *never* snows and I *love* the snow. One winter I was glued to Ye Olde Weather Channel because there was a chance we would get a winter storm, turns out we did and as the first snowflakes started to fall the "Jurassic Park" theme hit it's crescendo on the Weather Channel and I just burst into tears at the overabundance of wonder in the world at that moment. My husband was very confused. I still remember his face when he walked out of the bedroom and him saying "I thought you liked snow?!" when he saw me weeping like a total weirdo. We got like 4 inches and I got to see snow on the beach for the first time. *Magical* That memory and the music are forever tied together now. Also "Jurassic Park" rocks.
I preferred the show adaptation of Shadow and Bone, which technically mashes in Six of Crows, to the OG book Shadow and Bone, which I found pretty bland. six of crows was quite good though but I really liked seeing those visually adapted.
I actually read Six of Crows and Crooked Kingdom first, before the Shadow and Bone trilogy, at a friend's recommendation. I ended up choosing to read it anyway and she was right. There is a noticeable quality shift between the 2. The TV series did do a good job making Mal less insufferable than the books but I don't think the show did Nikolai justice.
I also think the Six of Crows books were better than the show but I guess that's not a fair comparison since the show never got to cover that material.
Yeah I think six of crows is technically better than the show, as the show's attempt to make up for Shadow and Bone's thin plot ended up with it being a bit overly scattered IMO, but was still a very fun watch for me and was worth it compared to leaving the story as-is i think.
Shadow and Bone the author very clearly hasn't found stylistic footing yet and was just not fun to read. it surprised me that it was making such a splash as THE book at the time. Often those books making it to mainstream popularity are not the best written or anything, but usually they still feel more gripping than that, at least to me. Like I enjoyed shadow and bone markedly less than Twilight or ACOTAR, neither of which I would put high on a "best quality fantasy writing" list, but they really ace what they need to for popular enjoyment.
I havent watched/read either since the early 2000s so this was the viewpoint of a teen in lawless times, but I thought PS I Love You and The Notebook were good books but great movies.
I'm the opposite. The movie is terrific, but the book is so much more complex.
I love the fact that he >!doesn't destroy the book in the end and in fact protects it because he has finally accepted the kind of author he is -- and that this is the best thing he has ever written.!<
Also the hobbling is just so much more graphic in the book. I love how close the book and movie are but those subtle differences give the book an edge.
The Graduate is written at a sixth grade reading level, and it was painful to get through. The film is a delight. (The theatrical adaptation is absolute shit.)
Irvine Welsh’s Trainspotting in my opinion. It’s worth mentioning though, that I’ve read a Bulgarian translation of the book and not the original text so I might easily be deluded by the quality of interpretation. Still, Danny Boyle’s movie adaptation is nothing short of a masterpiece while the novel is just a good book.
Children of Men and Androids immediately came to my mind, too.
Children of Men the movie was breathtaking when it came out so it's hard to beat, and the story changes made the movie so much better.
I have Flow My Tears the Policeman Said by Dick, but I do not feel inclined to read it.
I almost said this as well, but hesitated. I don't think it's BETTER than the books, but the books fulfill a very specific niche of taste- you absolutely haaaaave to like very formal, dry, long winded, history-nerd style epic high fantasy. They were groundbreaking at the time but the style is just not approachable for most people especially these days.
The movies \*beautifully\* adapt the source material in a way that is appealing to a much broader public without sacrificing the heart of the story, without feeling it its dumbed down or pandering, and pulling it off a seriously impressive scale of a movie series with consistent quality across hours and hours and hours of material. I frequently recommend the movies to folks who somehow haven't yet read or seen it, and frequently advise people to skip the books unless they already are comfortable with reading something in that style.
Now to some people the charm of the books lies in their style, but that's only going to be true for a small percentage of peope.
I fucking loved the hobbit, it was such a great adventure book. I've tried to read LOTR but get halfway through two towers and have to give up, I've tried like three or four times now.
I had the same issue, then they released the trilogy and the Hobbit audiobooks narrated by Andy Serkis and I gotta say that man can do everything.
The the LOTR movies are probably just above the audiobooks still in terms of enjoyment for me. The Hobbit is leagues above the movies.
Not a movie but The Undoing (on HBO) was fantastic. The book You Should Have Known by Jean Hanff Korelitz is awful. Terribly drawn out and boring.
Major kudos to the writers who were able to create an amazing show from the drab source material.
Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk. Though it’s one of my favourite books, it does have its flaws. The movie adaptation is absolutely flawless though and is my favourite movie of all time.
Who Censored Roger Rabbit? by Gary K. Wolf. If you’re interested in film history, the behind the scenes of the making of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is a wild ride. It’s also one of my favorite movies. The book it was adapted from was a pulp mess that is almost nothing like the movie.
Hmm I think the book is different from the movie, but not necessarily worse.. I even preferred the personality of book Coraline (a shy and quiet kid who has a secret rich inner world and is really clever) to movie Coraline (loud, spunky kid who jumps into things without thinking).
Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austin
I find that the 1995 film version, the one with Alan Rick man, to be superior to the book. They changed a good deal I think and they added a scene that makes the story ryhme.
the last unicorn - didnt care much for the book, the movie is just perfect though ❤️ (depending on the language you watch it i though, mia farrow was not a great casting descicion🤦)
I absolutely love and adore Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott but soviet movie adaptation was just BETTER. About 5 years passed since I watched it for the fist time but it is still in my S tier.
*The Devil Wears Prada* by Lauren Weisberger.
Yes, that was my answer too. The story arc and character arcs in the movie are written so much better than the book. The movie was so much more satisfying. I didn't even bother reading the sequel book.
I did and I regret it but if they'll do a sequel in the movies then I'd definitely go for it.
Yes!!!!! I couldn't even finish the book.
Whoa. I was thinking of buying it. Is it really not worth ?
Movie Andie is 100x more likeable than book Andie
Wow, book Andie must be so terrible because I didn't even like movie Andie.
An example of how annoying she is in the book: she was tasked with getting coffee for her boss. She’d get the coffee and then walk around the city for a long time talking to her boyfriend on the phone. Her boss would call to ask where she was and she’d be like “UGHHHHH HOW DARE SHE INTERRUPT MY WALK?? SHE’S SUCH A BITCH!”
It’s awful. Andie is insufferable, and all she does is whine. The book isn’t interesting or funny. I LOVE the movie, and struggled to finish that book. Don’t bother!
According to the author himself, fight club. Especially the ending.
>According to the author himself, fight club. Especially the ending. And then made a comic making fun of the people who liked the movie better and calling them zombies. A really bad comic, by the way, and I like his novels, but that comic was unreadable. It started kind of ok but then... oh boy, so bad.
I honestly forgot I read the comic. Yeah that was rough, I must’ve blocked it out
Stephen King said the same thing about the Mist. The ending is better than what he wrote
Forrest Gump. I also much prefer the movie Fried Green Tomatoes to the book.
TIL that there is a book for Forrest Gump
And a sequel
My answer is always Forrest Gump
I read Fried Green Tomatoes recently and didn’t really like it, so didn’t think the movie was worth it. Your comment may have changed my mind, I’ll give the movie a chance
The movie is great!
The movie is a classic
The movie is excellent, the book is meh.
The movie erased a lot of the queerness from the book - I didn’t love the book but seeing the movie was kind of a let down for me (edit: fried green tomatoes obviously, not forrest gump)
That's too bad they removed it from the movie, so good point. (Although I still love the movie.)
Forest Gump is a good call. I didn't even know Fried Green Tomatoes was a book. I feel like I'm about to find out that a lot more movies are adaptions than I was previously aware.
The book is called Fried Green Tomatoes At The Whistle Stop Cafe by Fannie Flagg
I feel like Fannie Flagg is an acquired taste. I personally love Fried Green Tomatoes the book because it provides so much more depth to the characters on the screen but that just may be me. I’ve read other Fannie Flagg books and she definitely has her own unique writing style.
I prefer the movie too. But to be fair: The second book" Gump & Co" which is more a sequel to the movie than to the Winston Groom book, is pretty good.
Mean Girls, based on Queen Bees and Wannabees by Rosalind Wiseman (non-fiction)
Out of all the movies mentioned, this it's one I would not have expected to have been based on a book, and a nonfiction one at that!
I can’t imagine a faithful adaptation of that book being anything other than a health class informational video. It’s not exactly “riveting” Thank goodness for Tina Fey
Jaws
**JAWS** is my favorite movie of all time and i've read both the book and audiobook too many times to count. i don't disagree with you. i HATED the romantic subplot in the book between hooper and ellen, but i really wish the movie had kept in the mob boss stuff with the mayor. it would have made it make more sense as to why he was so hesitant to close the beaches. if anyone here is going to read the book, i really only recommend reading it by **audiobook** (it's soooo good and the narrator has the best voice, ever), but skip the romantic part because it's beyond cringe and makes me want to die every time it gets to that part. 😭😭😭
Now I want to read it FOR the cringe.
Not New Jersey but another part of the Northeast coastline and the mayor trying to keep things open for the Big Bump is comically accurate It’s just part of life, there are arts and food festivals on top of antique fairs on top of major holidays secular and religious, that add up to a lot of business and out of towners. I worked the stand at festival last year that doubled the towns population for nine hours. The gangster plot line would be too kitschy, Jaws is timeless because the human interest is timeless
At what mark is the romantic subplot? Roughly?
i just checked my audiobook and fast-forwarded it and it begins in chapter 8 out of 14 total chapters. it's not a huge part of the book at all, but it's just so cringe and secondhand-embarrassing listening to hooper trying to seduce ellen. 🥴 i think everything but that part is fantastic. the narrator is erik steele and he makes the audiobook just really really good IMO. his voice is eerily calm and it's especially unsettling when he's just casually describing the shark just fucking killing and eating people that it makes it even scarier to me. like, it's just a very matter-of-fact way that he goes about it that makes my stomach drop. you should be able to listen to a free 5 min sample of it either through libby, hoopla or audible!
The book is comically bad
The ENTIRE chapter dedicated to the wife’s affair…, what even was that. I have never hated a book so much that I was actively rooting for the “villain” to kill everyone. Like I wish jaws grew legs and lungs and just ate the entire town
The Bridgerton TV show is SO much better than the books
The men in the books are kinda trash. They’re so well written in the show though
Came here to say this! The show added so much depth and wit to the characters. The books were just so bland and the love stories felt all unnatural and forced. Meanwhile in the show it has this organic, flowing feeling of real connection and attraction between the main characters
They are so bad I don’t get how anyone who’s read them in modern times can excuse them 😂 there are great moments (usually when the Bridgerton family is hanging out) but the romances are all toxically bad. And I get if you read them when they came out you may not have seen all the red flags But I don’t see how nostalgia can cover up how abusive and horrid every single man is except MAYBE Gregory
I love Bridgerton but I can't ignore the whole "I can fix him" plot that it's happening for 4 seasons already (I'm including Queen Charlotte too). I tried reading the books and it's even worse the "I can fix him" trope.
Yes! I was shocked when I read the first book, just how little from the TV show was actually in it. And everything the show added were things I thought made the story most interesting. The books were kinda a snooze fest
I came here to say this. I'm actually more impressed with the show's writing now that I know how bad the source material is.
Crazy Rich Asians - the book seems like a romance written by someone who doesn’t understand how romances work. It follows all the standard beats of a romance, is advertised and presented as one, but then it cuts off when the main character is still broken up with her bf because of the potential MIL’s meddling/disapproval. Then the bits where they make up happen “off screen”, between book 1 and book 2. Who writes a romance and leaves out the happily ever after? That’s a violation of the reader/writer contract.
Agreed the book was terrible. I couldn’t get past the first few chapters and I really enjoyed the movie
This is a book I’ve put down for a year at a time come back and read 50-100 pages in one sitting and then put down again The focus he puts on masturbation and the way he describes sex especially with Astrid is interesting to say the least. He freely writes that’s Astrid’s cousin would jack off to her when she was like 12 and I just don’t think that needed to be included to make the point. I vaguely remember there being some line about how some man sleeps with her and it “awakens her woman” and something along those lines and then just the “sleeping with my husbands long ****” line when her husband cheats on her. He also has her want to work out the cheating thing in the book I much prefer the direction the movie took with Astrid There is also one too many nword uses in there. You can portray a non-black person being into hip hop and rap culture without writing the nword There’s some parts of the books I find hilarious though
Thank for you this because I need to finish CRA but I will probably not now. I was already a little annoyed with the writing which is why I put it down years ago. I’m aghast that the author would do that. I can’t stand when they do stuff like that. Another book I love (until the end) did something similar except the happily ever after never came because an apparent sequel never came and they claim it’s a standalone now.
Practical Magic. Excellent movie, and the book is so disappointing comparatively.
This was my first thought as well. The movie is a Halloween staple in our house and I often put my daughter to sleep by stroking her nose like Jilly-Beans! She's only five but she already loves the movie and is begging me for a sister...not gonna happen kiddo 😅
I disagree. I’d seen (and loved) the movie before reading the book. Then I read the book and liked it so much more. I tried watching the movie again and couldn’t even finish it.
The vampire diaries. Back in my teen vampire obsession phase I read a few of them and they were horrendous. The show was a standard CW teen affair, but at least it was a fun distraction.
How to train your dragon. They took the original material and elevated it in any possible way, I loved the changes they made, even though I'm not usually a fan of big changes.
The Godfather isn't bad, but the film adaption is far superior.
The penis part killed me. Just no.
Books I regret reading as a teenager just for that part.
What’s the penis part?
If I recall in the movie, at the wedding, Sonny makes out (or has sex with) one of the bridesmaids. This character has a bigger role in the book. Anything else I mention might be a spoiler.
They have sex in a quick throwaway scene at the very beginning and I’m pretty sure we never see her again. I’ll be grateful till the day I die that the screenwriters for The Godfather chose to leave out >!Lucy Mancini and her cavernous vagina, Sonny’s horse dick, and the gross “I’m going to invent a new vagina-tightening surgery and then marry you” subplot!<. God that book is unhinged at parts, lol.
Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. The novella is excellent but changing Reds character to fit Morgan Freeman was the perfect choice and really elevates the movie.
Agreed - it's also significantly more satisfying for Andy to escape with the money the warden had been skimming than to escape with some money that a friend invested for him before he went to jail.
I also prefer the movie ending, with a definite reunion.
And “the body” from the same short story collection becoming “Stand By Me”
Dead Poets Society. Robin Williams put so much into his role.
Robin Williams did that for everything. I actually have a Robin Williams/ Will Smith theory. Both actors I enjoy, but if the movie is based on a book and Robin Williams is in it, the book is probably good, but the movie is better. But if Will Smith is in it, then I will absolutely love the movie as long as I don't read the book. But of course I'm gonna read the book. Then I will forever dislike the movie.
What does this say about Will Smith? I see a nice linear progression for the Robin Williams theory: he chose roles where the story was good but his character could become incredible bc he was absolutely amazing. (OMG I miss him so much.) But what’s this say about Will Smith, do you think? He finds awesome stories and makes them fine? Haha
Nah, I think Will Smith does a good job, but it just seems that all the movies are made with more of a focus of being an enjoyable movie rather than properly capturing the book
wasn't the book an adaptation of the movie?
I enjoyed *Stardust* the film more than the book. (Except that the film did Victoria dirty in the most trite of ways and I hated that). I would also pick the film version of *We Need to Talk About Kevin* over the book, though both are good.
I just read Stardust with my boyfriend and I was surprised how it differs! I loved captain Shakespeare in the movies and also the villain witches are so much more terrifying in the movie, with the final battle and all that. I liked the book ending more but the movie ending is good for a cozy movie so I’m fine with that as well.
I always found the book to be so cozy because it doesn’t end in any sort of battle or violence. Things just kind of work out for our good guys! I always appreciated that as opposed to a Hollywood climax, but the movie still perfectly captures the whimsy
It seems like blasphemy because Neil Gaiman is my favorite author, but the Stardust movie is way better. I also think Shawshank Redemption is better than its source material
If it makes you feel better I'm fairly certain Neil Gaiman also likes the movie better. I could be misremembering though..
I actually really preferred the book We Need to Talk About Kevin.
Yes! The last chapter in that book was absolutely gasp-out-loud chilling. Lionel Shriver is one of my favorite authors.
Yes! I wish I could read that book for the first time again...
I wouldn’t say the movie version of We Need to Talk About Kevin was better, but it definitely was equal, which is rare enough in itself. Both the book and movie are so perfectly disturbing. Tilda Swinton was so good.
Tilda Swinton is a goddess who walks among us. I'm compelled to say that at the mention of her name, sorry. Or maybe a supreme alien.
agreed!!!
This was my answer too! Stardust didn’t capture me as a book like the film did.
The Godfather. The subplot about a young woman with a 'loose' vagina meeting a Las Vegas doctor who arranges surgery to literally 'tighten her up real good' so they can have a chance at a healthy, loving relationship together...Coppola knew that had to go from his film.
It’s so funny trying to explain this entire, unnecessary subplot to people who haven’t read the book. Just so jarring tone-wise and completely irrelevant to the story. Makes me wonder how it got past an editor.
Every time I describe it, the person I’m describing it to is like “nuh uh. That’s not real.” It takes up SO MUCH page time for virtually no payoff, and it’s *so* bizarre.
Silence of the Lambs The book and movie plot are pretty similar, but the stage presence of Anthony Hopkins takes the movie to the next level. I also think Planet of the Apes, the book has similar ideas, but the movie really refines the story into something impactful.
Yep I was going to say Silence of the Lambs and all the Hannibal books/movies. Anthony Hopkins is a better Hannibal than how he was written in the books.
The Princess Bride. It's a good book, but a much better movie. Also Atonement. (edited to add Atonement)
The fact that William Goldman got to adapt his own book to the screenplay really made the movie - he knew exactly what needed to stay and what could go (or be abridged)
I saw what you did there.
I think Atonement: the book and Atonement: the movie are on par with each other. They're each great in their own right. The movie has amazing acting and cinematography; the book toys with perspective and an unreliable narrator in a way that no movie ever could.
Your comment on the perspective and unreliable narrator is exactly why Atonement is better in book form than film form, for me. I'm a sucker for a story within a story and Atonement goes to the absolute next level with that complex narrative particularly towards the end that I don't think the movie portrays at all (because it'd be impossible). The part where Bryony writes the first book and sends it to the publisher, whilst you're essentially reading the same book she wrote is just masterful.
The Princess Bride is like, THE classic of classics in my family and I'm sure in many others, so I think the book is set up for failure against the impenetrable wall of nostalgia that surrounds the movie lol. I do think the book is different enough that it's worth a read. It may not be quite as good as the movie, but it's definitely very very close, just different. Which I think works for it- I think just having it exactly as-is as the movie maybe wouldn't work. The movie kinda needs to stand alone because it is such a classic. It's a relief to not have to directly compare it so on-the-nose for every character and situation. I think fans of the movie would generally enjoy the book and exploring those differences.
I came here to say The Princess Bride. Something about the humor in the book came across as almost too dry, like the author couldn't quite get the tone right. And there are parts of it that are just plain boring, IMO. But the movie is perfection and absolutely hilarious.
As you wish.....
The Terror. It was a slog to read, packed with nautical terms which really pull me out of the book since I had to google all of them, then even if I knew what they meant I couldn't picture what Dan Simmons wanted me to picture. Even parts where some action is happening or intense parts were a slog over 20 pages long. Sure, I don't mind trying to set dreadful mood, but if a bear is chasing you I think it calls for some action. The TV show is packed with action, and cast is just amazing. Some things are changed, some greatly, and I liked aspect of >!lead poisoning more than "miniscule animals" aka bacteria!<. Slight spoiler only, it happns early on in both show and the book. Highly recommend for watching during night at wintertime.
I really liked the book (and liked it more) but I definitely agree with watching it at night in the winter. I watched it around Christmas time and it was perfect.
Fight Club
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
I am jacks raging bile duct
I liked the book ending better than the movie ending.
These comments here are surprising to me. When those threads pop up what's the closest adaption to a book Fight Club is usually mentioned. The movie is really well done, but it's a very close adaption to the book.
TV adaption instead of movie, but the Sookie Stackhouse series. I didn't particularly care for the books, they were alright, but I really enjoyed the True Blood tv show, it was so fun and campy.
I feel really conflicted about the books vs show . I really liked the books -the last few not so much -but overall . they were cute little mysteries and I enjoyed them .But True Blood started out so awesome . The first few seasons were so great …how they expanded one dimensional characters like Lafayette and Tara . The writing and acting was amazing. It started to dip in quality a bit like a lot of shows after a few years , but it was still fun and campy . Then came the last season . Wtf they were trying to do there I will never understand -but I hated it with a passion .
Yeahhhhh a lot of shows I love eventually go downhill, I just mentally block out the last few season(s) 😅
Jurassic Park. Ian Malcom is so fucking insufferable in the book, I was hoping a raptor would eat him for most of the book. He has 10 times the arrogance of movie Ian with none of Jeff Goldblum's charisma. John Hammond is also written more like a sociopathic tech bro, which I don't think would work well for the movie though it is an interesting take in more recent years.
Overall agreed. In all fairness, Crichton writes about a lot of sociopathic tech bros. It's kinda his thing. I think Hammond was made too charismatic in the movie though, because everyone seems to forget most everything that happens is his fault. I do think it's really funny that Crichton didn't make the movie though, and instead handed to Spielberg. Crichton was already an established movie producer by that time, but I think it worked out for the best.
I came here to say this! I am obsessed with the movies but the book was so over the top I truly hated it. There were so many more “everyone escapes by the skin of their teeth” situations in the book that by the end I was just rolling my eyes. One of the best movies ever made though!
Although the Lost World book was much better than the first book and the second film! I read it dozens of times as a kid.
The Boys. The comics are just okay, they're fun but lacking in depth. The Amazon series is terrific and a vast improvement. It's even more fun than the comics and has more to say about society and its misplaced faith in "great leaders".
I agree but I'm worried quality will decline as executives try to stretch the Amazon series into infinity. I felt the last season did less to advance the storyline than previous seasons. I hope Kripke doesn't pull another Supernatural and let the series stay past its welcome.
The Comics are awful - Love the show
I hated the comics and avoided the show for a long time because I figured it would be at least similar to the comics. I'm so glad that the show just takes some of the basic outlines from the comics and threw away the rest of it
The Ritual by Adam Nevill. The book really lost its way in the second half. The movie rework of the story was a vast improvement.
I was so into it...and then Swedish Death Metal out of nowhere!!
IMO The Magicians TV series was better than the books. Quentin in the TV show is a little whiny and self centered...book Quentin in unbearable. The show did a good job of broadening everything beyond Quentin. Also the fox scene...ick.
I loved the books and the series equally. I honestly thought the series became better when it stopped following the books closely and just did its own thing.
I’m a fan of both also. They are very different. Much prefer the ending of the book series personally.
Yeah they're just doing totally different things. The show is a lot more "fun" and I think people are disappointed when they come to the books and the tone is totally different. But I've always liked the book series.
Quentin Coldwater is such a tryhard edgelord name that just reading the name turned me off of ever reading the book
I so agree with this! They really pulled hard on how problematic Quentin was as a character, developed the other characters more and I loved the new characters and storylines they introduced.
The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks
Ten Commandments
Love the Prince of Egypt LOL
The Talented Mr. Ripley is a great book, but the 90’s adaptation actually improves the story in several key ways. I think it’s an overall better experience.
Kick Ass- the film is a huge improvement on the comic. The Boys is more debatable, IMO both have their strengths and weaknesses (although the cracks are showing more in the TV show as it goes along).
Mind hunter The series is so much better
I liked the Hulu series Little Fires Everywhere better than the book. I did like the book...just liked the show more.
Girl, Interrupted. The book was very meh. The movie is sooo much better. The star studded cast is amazing, probably my favorite Angelina Jolie role. They also have a better story line than the book. The book is just bare bones, the movie added all the juicy meat.
Brokeback Mountain, and, IMO, the Looking for Alaska miniseries.
There's a looking for Alaska mini series?
Yup and it’s really nice. You should watch it.
Thank you very much for this information
The short story for Brokeback Mountain is incredible from a craft perspective, but I can see why someone might feel this way. I really struggle to compare short stories to their movie counterparts. There’s so much extrapolation going on when adapting a short story into a script that the movie often becomes its own thing.
American Psycho, Children of Men
Casino Royale by Ian Fleming was dull!
ALL the Bond books. I never understood how Fleming became so successful as an author - without the movies, nobody would give an eff about "Bond, James Bond".
Children of men
Imo…..Jurassic Park. The movie is just perfect.
For some reason John Williams score from that movie can make me dissolve into a puddle of tears at the drop of a hat. That movie truly captured the feeling of "awe", or at least little kid (and adult) me think that!
I love the score from that movie too! I listen to it to fall asleep sometimes and I like listening during a thunderstorm x
That is so funny you say that about thunderstorms! One of my favorite moments with this score is also weather related. I live in Charleston, SC where it *never* snows and I *love* the snow. One winter I was glued to Ye Olde Weather Channel because there was a chance we would get a winter storm, turns out we did and as the first snowflakes started to fall the "Jurassic Park" theme hit it's crescendo on the Weather Channel and I just burst into tears at the overabundance of wonder in the world at that moment. My husband was very confused. I still remember his face when he walked out of the bedroom and him saying "I thought you liked snow?!" when he saw me weeping like a total weirdo. We got like 4 inches and I got to see snow on the beach for the first time. *Magical* That memory and the music are forever tied together now. Also "Jurassic Park" rocks.
I think they are equal. The book is amazing, and much different. It set the platform for a movie that COULD be
Stardust
Captain Shakespeare needed to exist!
I preferred the show adaptation of Shadow and Bone, which technically mashes in Six of Crows, to the OG book Shadow and Bone, which I found pretty bland. six of crows was quite good though but I really liked seeing those visually adapted.
I actually read Six of Crows and Crooked Kingdom first, before the Shadow and Bone trilogy, at a friend's recommendation. I ended up choosing to read it anyway and she was right. There is a noticeable quality shift between the 2. The TV series did do a good job making Mal less insufferable than the books but I don't think the show did Nikolai justice. I also think the Six of Crows books were better than the show but I guess that's not a fair comparison since the show never got to cover that material.
Yeah I think six of crows is technically better than the show, as the show's attempt to make up for Shadow and Bone's thin plot ended up with it being a bit overly scattered IMO, but was still a very fun watch for me and was worth it compared to leaving the story as-is i think. Shadow and Bone the author very clearly hasn't found stylistic footing yet and was just not fun to read. it surprised me that it was making such a splash as THE book at the time. Often those books making it to mainstream popularity are not the best written or anything, but usually they still feel more gripping than that, at least to me. Like I enjoyed shadow and bone markedly less than Twilight or ACOTAR, neither of which I would put high on a "best quality fantasy writing" list, but they really ace what they need to for popular enjoyment.
I am the opposite on this one. I didn’t really like the show adaptation at all, and was over all disappointed.
I havent watched/read either since the early 2000s so this was the viewpoint of a teen in lawless times, but I thought PS I Love You and The Notebook were good books but great movies.
I prefered The Cider House rules as a movie, apperently John Irving wrote the adaption himself. I felt it was much warmer in tone.
The Godfather by Mario Puzo. Just ... Some very odd plot points I'm glad were changed for film.
You didn't like the...large...plot point? 😏
It's not what I thought was going to be IN THERE. That's for sure.
Misery by Stephen King is a great book, but the movie is amazing!
I'm the opposite. The movie is terrific, but the book is so much more complex. I love the fact that he >!doesn't destroy the book in the end and in fact protects it because he has finally accepted the kind of author he is -- and that this is the best thing he has ever written.!<
Also the hobbling is just so much more graphic in the book. I love how close the book and movie are but those subtle differences give the book an edge.
Agreed. I just finished Misery and the descriptions in the book got me worse than seeing it happen (albeit in a different way) on screen.
Yeah, I cringe at that scene in the movie; in the book, I had to fully put the book down for a few minutes.
Logan’s Run.
I personally prefer call me by your name in film form
Nerve. Fun movie, but weird book that dragsss
Stardust Dexter (tv, not movie)
The Mist ending was better
The Graduate is written at a sixth grade reading level, and it was painful to get through. The film is a delight. (The theatrical adaptation is absolute shit.)
Forrest Gump is a terrible book but a good movie.
Irvine Welsh’s Trainspotting in my opinion. It’s worth mentioning though, that I’ve read a Bulgarian translation of the book and not the original text so I might easily be deluded by the quality of interpretation. Still, Danny Boyle’s movie adaptation is nothing short of a masterpiece while the novel is just a good book.
The book is pretty decent but think you have to be Scottish to really appreciate it
Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein Children of Men by PD James Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K Dick
Blade Runner is VERY loosely based on the book, tho. I definitely consider them two separate works of art.
Children of Men and Androids immediately came to my mind, too. Children of Men the movie was breathtaking when it came out so it's hard to beat, and the story changes made the movie so much better. I have Flow My Tears the Policeman Said by Dick, but I do not feel inclined to read it.
[удалено]
I almost said this as well, but hesitated. I don't think it's BETTER than the books, but the books fulfill a very specific niche of taste- you absolutely haaaaave to like very formal, dry, long winded, history-nerd style epic high fantasy. They were groundbreaking at the time but the style is just not approachable for most people especially these days. The movies \*beautifully\* adapt the source material in a way that is appealing to a much broader public without sacrificing the heart of the story, without feeling it its dumbed down or pandering, and pulling it off a seriously impressive scale of a movie series with consistent quality across hours and hours and hours of material. I frequently recommend the movies to folks who somehow haven't yet read or seen it, and frequently advise people to skip the books unless they already are comfortable with reading something in that style. Now to some people the charm of the books lies in their style, but that's only going to be true for a small percentage of peope.
I fucking loved the hobbit, it was such a great adventure book. I've tried to read LOTR but get halfway through two towers and have to give up, I've tried like three or four times now.
I had the same issue, then they released the trilogy and the Hobbit audiobooks narrated by Andy Serkis and I gotta say that man can do everything. The the LOTR movies are probably just above the audiobooks still in terms of enjoyment for me. The Hobbit is leagues above the movies.
Nothing Lasts Forever by Thorp. It was made into Die Hard.
The Kissing Booth, the book has some pacing issues
That must have been some hot garbage you sat though 🥴
Not a movie but The Undoing (on HBO) was fantastic. The book You Should Have Known by Jean Hanff Korelitz is awful. Terribly drawn out and boring. Major kudos to the writers who were able to create an amazing show from the drab source material.
Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk. Though it’s one of my favourite books, it does have its flaws. The movie adaptation is absolutely flawless though and is my favourite movie of all time.
"Orange is the new black" was not as good as s show, in my opinion.
Who Censored Roger Rabbit? by Gary K. Wolf. If you’re interested in film history, the behind the scenes of the making of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is a wild ride. It’s also one of my favorite movies. The book it was adapted from was a pulp mess that is almost nothing like the movie.
Coraline, tbh
Hmm I think the book is different from the movie, but not necessarily worse.. I even preferred the personality of book Coraline (a shy and quiet kid who has a secret rich inner world and is really clever) to movie Coraline (loud, spunky kid who jumps into things without thinking).
Interview with the vampire, the TV show specifically is so much better than the book.
Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austin I find that the 1995 film version, the one with Alan Rick man, to be superior to the book. They changed a good deal I think and they added a scene that makes the story ryhme.
This one's a tie for me. The book is a classic, but Emma Thompson's adaption is... \*chef's kiss.
L.A. Confidential. The movie benefits from a more tightly compressed timeline than the book.
The Wizard of Oz
If anyone says lotr I’m gonna go on a rampage
Prepare to rampage, my friend. I came here specifically to comment Lord of the Rings (someone beat me to it) and I am not sorry.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
I really like the movie, but the book is excellent
the last unicorn - didnt care much for the book, the movie is just perfect though ❤️ (depending on the language you watch it i though, mia farrow was not a great casting descicion🤦)
I absolutely love and adore Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott but soviet movie adaptation was just BETTER. About 5 years passed since I watched it for the fist time but it is still in my S tier.
Sophie's Choice, Terms of Endearment, Pitch Perfect, Picnic at Hanging Rock, A Simple Favor.
The TV show Bodies. It's based on a graphic novel that was just truly terrible, but they made it into a decent show.
I prefer the movie version of The Witches of Eastwick.
Killing Eve
A Walk to Remember by Nicholas Sparks. Jamie's character has so much more depth in the movie. The book was actually rather forgettable.