Many a movie has been an adaptation of a novel or short story. No doubt a lot of people will conclude the viewing experience, and walk away with the idea that the book was better, and the movie didn’t fully capture the feel or the essence that the book provides. In many cases, this can be true.
Now to the Twixer’s comments above, it’s hard for me to think of a movie that was WAY better than the book, but I can think of a few movies that were on par, if not a little better.
No Country for Old Men – 2007
McCarthy’s books are not for everyone. He has a unique writing style where he ignores most conventions of modern English, absent of proper punctuation, commas, etc. But, he does write a good story. I read the book and watched the film, and I have to say, damn fine stuff. Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, and Javier Bardem were all great in it, and the film is a great adaptation, if not a little better, than the book.
Jurassic Park – 1993
I like Crichton’s books, and I enjoyed reading Jurassic Park when I did (after I saw the movie), but I have to say the movie is better. Maybe it’s because of the otherworldly special effects and great filmmaking, but the movie really knocked it out of the park.
The Shawshank Redemption – 1994
Honestly, you could put a whole host of movies made from Stephen King books here, including The Shining, It, and The Long Walk. Something about King’s long-windedness doesn’t appeal to me, even though the stories are good. Taking out all the superfluous details from a story and capturing the best parts drives it home, so kudos to King on the tale, but kudos to the filmmakers for making it a more palatable and enjoyable experience.
The Hunger Games, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter
I lumped these together for the same reason as Shawshank, mainly because I don’t have enough time to read thousands of pages of books and the kids told me that the films were better than the books, anyway. Except for Lord of the Rings, which they neither read nor watched…but when I was younger and later older I did my level best to read Tolkien and, man, I just couldn’t do it.
Some others I thought of off the top of my head:
- Band of Brothers (more of a tie, the book is amazing and the series doesn’t include all the details, but the series is amazing)
- Jaws
- The Godfather
- Goodfellas
- One Battle After Another – based on Pinchon’s Vineland, they say, and if that’s the case, the movie is hands-down better.
So how about you…what movie or TV adaptation do you prefer over the book?
I doubt that there’s a Kubrick movie that doesn’t belong here. Nearly all of his movies were adaptations and the book becomes pretty much irrelevant after he’s done.
I read No Country after seeing the movie. I was surprised at how different they were. I do have to give the movie the nod though.
Yeah, that’s about the only one I could think of. 2001 (which I consider one of the greatest movies ever made) is based on a short story by Alister Clark, so yeah, this was much better. Other than that, and maybe Steven King, I can’t think of a movie better than the book.
ARTHUR C. Clark, dammit. Getting old sucks.
Pretty sure that Clarke and Kubrick collaborated on the movie and that the book was written at the same time as the movie was being developed.
There was an earlier Clark short story called “The Sentinel” (1948) that inspired it first. That’s what I was referring to.
You’re correct that Clark wrote a longer book while Kubrick made the movie. I’ve never really seen that book as the movie stands alone in my mind.
This book details the making of the movie. Excellent read if you’re a movie nerd, plus it’s $1.99 on Kindle.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35297381-space-odyssey
They are making a movie for Clarks novella Rendezvous with Rama. Dennis Villeneuve is supposed to direct.
I’ll add Deliverance. I wouldn’t say the movie is better, but definitely on par with the book.
To me they are just very different. I love the movie and the book but they are almost two different things.
It was a children’s book bitd, but Old Yeller the movie was much better than the book, at least that’s how I felt back then.
Not better but the True Grit remake with Jeff Bridges was on par with Charles Portia’ book. And as much as I love John Wayne the remake was better than the original. For starters the girl who played Mattie was much easier to root for.
Portis.
I really liked the remake and it got me to read the book, which I loved. I consider the two movies pretty much separate movies and I like them both, but in their own ways.
BTW, I was driving up through Arkansas a couple of months ago and found myself in Yell County.
“A writ of replevin!”
“Keep your seat, trash.”
Jaws
I went through the pain-in-the-ass it is to switch computers so I could comment here. I disagree with your Jurassic Park assessment. It is in amazing movie, but should not even carry the name of the book. The book focuses heavily on chaos theory and moral dilemmas set in the back drop of reviving dinosaurs. The movie focused on dinosaurs and mentioned chaos theory as a throw-away line. Again, great movie, but it totally missed most of the nuances of the book. When the movie came out, I was pissed.
(disclaimer: Chrichton is one of my all-time favorite authors and Jurassic Park is one of my favorite books)
Totally agree. The book is a page turner. The original movie was excellent, but it still doesn’t do Crichton’s creation justice.
You sir are totally correct. Jurassic Park is a great movie. The book by Micheal Crichton is even better. It’s an amazing read by an all time great author.
Jaws the movie is better than the book. The book has Brody’s wife having an affair with the marine biologist.
I would add 2001 Space Odyssey since Arthur Clarke wrote both the book and the screenplay I wont.
The Player – Robert Altman’s movie is better, and Peter Tolkien wrote both I believe (traveling now, will look it up later).
Having been a Librarian for over 20 years, I used movie adaptations to drive book circulation. Especially for adult new readers. One thing I always suggest and use personally is a mindset separating the movie from the book and putting them into two separate spaces.
The closest adaptation win for me would be CBS getting Lonesome Dove into a mini-series. I know I could pick it apart especially where (Spoiler Alert) Newt has several internal dialogues that wouldn’t really translate on screen but I thought it was presented well, was long enough to get most of the material in without gaps and the actors cared. Re-watch it with a Shiner Bock – you’re welcome.
Second would be from Russia with Love, the movie really broke the book down and created one of the more “Maximum Bond” outings. Wait until it gets cooler and get a can of Old Rasputin Nitro to savour.
Finally, and this will generate push back – the Denzel Washington Man on Fire adaptation. Full disclosure: I haven’t watched the new mini series, I’ve been waiting to re-read the book first. Completely updated for a modern audience with a shift in locations that makes sense. Also, Denzel is great as a burnt out veteran. Hard likker and handguns = no bueno in the community. That being said, I’ll be part of the problem, pour yourself a gameday stiffy with a big ice rock and make it something Barreled in Bond where that 100 proof that gives you a little hug.
All my libation pairings work for movie and/or book. Also, cigars would go well although Shiner Bock might be light so think about Old Forrester Rye and a cigar for Lonesome Dove.
All three libation recommendations available at 5 Points Bottle shop.
Apologies, to those wanting kale smoothie/rom com recommendations.
Agreed. They are two different art forms and they shouldn’t be the same.
Arguments about, as an example, whether The Shining adheres closely enough to the novel are silly and miss the point.
For Kubrick, the original novel is just a structure from which to build a story with several different layers going on that have nothing to do with the book.
I do anticipate that if they ever make Blood Meridian into a movie, I’ll hate it….
Not sure it can be done on film with live actors. No one could do Judge Holden justice imho.
Funny you bring up Blood Meridian because I’ve never finished it and I’ve wanted to position it versus Lonesome Dove for best western novel. Blood Meridian is beloved in the veteran community but I haven’t gotten there and the debates about it being adapted for the screen get in depth and heated.
Thank you for your service!
I’ve read several of the Bond books. FRWL was great and the movie tried to keep up with it. The Casino Royale reboot with Daniel Craig did an admirable job of trying to stick to the book while also modernizing the story. I wish a producer would make one of the books a period piece Bond movie.
Yeah, they’ve had some of the newer licensed authors to period stories and I’ve liked them. A period remake or one of those stories could be great. Ironically, my favorite Fleming book was Moonraker and I despise the movie.
P.S. I’ve been known to drive my friends crazy with the theory The Rock is a Bond Flick, lol
Totally disagree on the Harry Potter movies. Yes, I respond to some stuff here with clips from movies, but that’s not an endorsement of the movies over the books. I’m reading them from start to finish for the 3rd time. There are so many things in the books that don’t appear in the movies that provide context to the story.
The HP series is probably more suited to a multi-season series that is coming on HBO MAX. Each book will be a season (guessing the last book will be 2 seasons), and JKR has said the scripts are much more closely aligned to the books.
Shawshank is definitely better than King’s original novella (which isn’t bad but it’s written from a very different perspective).
Forrest Gump. The book & the movie had almost nothing in common. Plus the book sucked royally, just awful to read. It was like the author, can’t remember the name, was drunk & stoned while writing.
I agree with Shawshank and add the Green Mile from Stephen King. Lonesome Dove is definitely one for me. I think the movie was just as good and maybe a bit better (I know it’s technically a mini series, but still).
Fight Club. The book drags along too slowly (especially if you’re reading it in Edward Norton’s monotone narrator voice). The movie is an all time classic.
Many would argue that the Godfather was a better movie than book. I loved both, but the book had a subplot about Sonny’s mistress (if memory serves?) that was dull.
Hannibal. The book totally sucked. Just a bunch of boring psychobabble, trying to explain Hannibal Lector and then having a stupid, unrealistic ending.
The movie wasn’t great either (I didn’t like changing actresses from The Silence of the Lambs, which was Jodie Foster’s decision – can’t say I blame her after reading the book), but at least the movie cut out the boring crap and had a more realistic and better ending. It was very upsetting after reading Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs, which were both great and waiting 11 years after TSOTL book to get the hot garbage that is “Hannibal”. I might even watch the movie again some day, but I’ll never read the book again or read anything that came out after it (Hannibal Rising).
I will have to add that the TV show “Hannibal” was really good, but each season was not as good as the previous season (it lasted 3 seasons). Like the books “Red Dragon” and “The Silence of the Lambs”, the show was so disturbing that you couldn’t quite make yourself NOT watch it.
TV adaption of 1980 UGA football was 100 times better than any book I’ve seen. How the authors scripted that season on a weekly basis left me wanting more….(The radio presentation thoroughly enhance the TV adaption)…GO DAWGS!!
I preferred the live performances. I managed to catch 10 of their shows that year. Just sublime, especially the actor that played “#34”.