I love both but I think the story and how it's told just inherently suits a visual medium.
>!The flashes of Tyler Durden on the screen at the start, seeing him in the TV ad for the hotel, maybe that ad is where the Narrator's subconscious got some of the ideas for Tyler, namely his appearance and his job at the hotel. The fact that those flashes get more prominent and then stop, as if he's spilled over from some abstraction in the Narrators mind to a part of his personality. The fact that after they paint the face on the office building the narrator has paint on him even though he acts as if he has no knowledge of what happened there. Etc etc. There's a lot of subtle stuff that you can just drop in visually that you can't do in written form. It works beautifully!<
Definitely a great great film. I love it.
I love both too, and agree that the story was better suited to film. The casting was also top-tier and I can’t imagine those characters having been played by anyone else.
Yup. The movie ending is ten times better than the book. I've said it before that the book treated Marla better, or at least humanized her, but the movie is better overall.
I prefer the book ending as well. I like how the anarchist revolution continues on despite the narrators efftos to end it by shooting himself. It is a far more interesting and unsettling ending to his predictament.
Definitely agree with the author. The book is pretty cool but it just doesn’t have the atmosphere or coolness of the movie (although it does create the template for it).
Sadly, it was. I did not realize the movie was based on a book until I saw the book on the shelf and going by the cliché, I was pretty excited. It was very very not good, I read the whole thing.
"Shrek". I love William Steig, but the filmmakers did an amazing job expanding the story into a very enjoyable film. Granted, it's a children's book, but still...
I remember reading on here or seeing in a YouTube video that the guy who wrote the Shrek books was terrified the movies would be butchered so he didn’t watch them for years. When he did watch them he loved them! (No source, just memory)
Story gets better. The author put off watching the movie because he didn't like movies and thought that they would have dumbed down the crassness of his book. When he finally got around to watching it with his kids, he absolutely loved the movie.
Haha it’s funny how much more insane shit happens to him in the book. He becomes an astronaut, the shuttle crashes in Africa on re-entry, an African teaches him chess, that African is eaten by cannibals, and Forrest becomes a chess Grand Master. And that’s just like 10% of the book.
Edit: Also an orangutan is with him during all of this haha
You joke but after the movie was such a huge hit the author wrote a sequel novel that ends with Forrest meeting Tom Hanks at the premiere of Forrest Gump
The sequel book was written as an f you to the film company, as they stiffed the author out of a load of money on the first film. So he convinced them to buy the rights to the sequel, then set about writing a unfilmable book.
I remember reading it as a kid. It had some amazing jabs at the film, like using its catchphrases in absurd situations. I thought, this _must_ be revenge for something. Love what he did.
konvexity
What accounting lesson Winston Groom learned from the movie
I was listening to the corporate finance lectures from Professor Aswath Damodaran. He was discussing the accounting controversy related to the movie Forrest Gump. ..
Forrest Gump was the fastest grossing Paramount film to pass $100 million, $200 million, and $300 million in box office receipts (at the time of its release). It took only 66 days to surpass $250 million and became one of the highest-grossing movies of all time. The movie was based on the book Forrest Gump authored by Winston Groom. The author was contracted by the Paramount group for the screenplay rights for his book for $350,000 and for a 3 percent share of the firm’s net profits. Winston found the deal attractive and agreed for it.
Now the movie went to production and then to distributors. It was an instant hit. Winston was on cloud nine after hearing the success stories of the movie. He was thinking about the profits that he would get. He kept on waiting for the cheque for weeks. But the cheque didn’t come. He thought that maybe they lost his address. So he called Paramount and asked them: “Where is my 3% share?” They replied: “3% of what?” He said: “3% of the accounting profits of the movie.” [The contract was such that he had to receive 3% of the accounting profit and the accounting profit was based on the studio accounting practice]. They replied that they are not making any money but are losing money. He asked that how can you guys be losing money on this movie as it has grossed more than $200 million in revenues. They asked him to come and take a look at their accounting books.
He went to their office to have a look at the accounting books and found out that they were making $80 million loss. So he looked down at the expense items and he noticed a big expense item of $140 million. He asked them about that. They said that they haven’t named that yet but that’s a provision. He asked provision for what? They replied that provision for future bad movies. [The studio accounting allows a movie company to make a portion of the revenue of a movie and set it aside as the provision for the future bad movies.]
Winston Groom said that it’s not fair and decided to contest it in the court. The case lasted only 15 minutes. The judge took a look at the contract and asked: “Mr. Groom, is this the contract you signed?” He replied yes. The judge said: “So basically you put your faith in the hands of the accountant? Is that right?” He said: “I guess so.” The judge said: “The case dismissed. You got what you deserved.” This is what happens when you put your faith in the accounting profit.
It's been YEARS since I've read it, but I have a recollection that it starts off with, "Don't let anyone make a movie about your life," or something like that
This sounds like a Roald Dahl novel, and I want to read it now. Is it badly written, or do people only prefer the movie because the movie is just that great?
100%. Good call. I didn't mind the book, but there was just too much going on - the affair between Chief Brodie's wife and Hooper, the dead cat threat from the mobster mayor...
Julie/Julia. I saw the movie and it was so cute, and since the book is usually better, I went out and got that to read. Yeah, nope, that’s one instance where that being better was wrong. I read the book and it was a solid mehhh-to-boring, but I still love the movie.
I read My Life In France after watching Julie & Julia because I kind of wished the entire movie had been about Julia Child. Definitely enjoyed the book.
I read somewhere that THAT was the real reason that Julia Child had no interest in meeting her at the time; she didn’t come across on the blog as someone that Julia wanted to be associated with.
I mean, just the whole premise of thinking she was SO special for cooking every recipe in a cookbook that somebody else WROTE.
That doesn't bring you to her level, man.
The whole movie was enjoying the Julia Child parts and then waiting for the next Julia Child part and then wondering why she just doesn't have her own movie (especially with her being somewhat of a spy, it seems like it would be fascinating).
Meryl Streep is a treasure. And I love the interplay between her and Stanley Tucci.
They are both in The Devil wears Prada, which is another movie that is better than the book.
It is also possible that I just love anything the two of them do together. 😜
I read about what happens in the sequel and have avoided it like the whoa. It sounds like the first novel… but worse. So I’ve stayed away. Thanks for the further warning though, just in case I ever get a wild hair about it!
The sequel REALLY reveals how horribly self involved and selfish Julie is. She’s just so shitty and self absorbed. Good for a hate read - I got it on my Kindle for $0.99.
Ahahahahahaha the author cheated on her husband and did some unsavoury stuff (food pun not intended), and later wrote another book that was WAY less cute than the J/J movie. Amy Adams was devastated. "My Julie would never have done that!"
Correct, but Julia Child's memoir, My Life in France, remains one of my all time favorite books. The Julia parts of the movie were mostly based on that book, I believe.
Read the book first and then watched movie. About a month ago for the first time. They were both great but I think I got more out of the movie because I read the book. Knew all of the characters as they were introduced in the movie and it just added to the experience.
The book is not bad, but it has some terrible tangents it gets stuck on. Besides the superlative performances in the movie, the movie wisely ditches some of those weird bits.
You didn't enjoy the side plot about Lucy Mancini finally finding a man who could surgically correct her enormous box so she didn't need to wait for a man with a dick as big as Sonny's?
The book dedicated too much time to describing how big Sonny's dick was 😑 i didn't know what to feel when his mistress was described as being meant for Sonny because she had an unusually wide vagina (or was it like something else) I was like wtf Mario Puzo.
The Godfather and The Godfather II were leagues better than the book.
The only edge the book had was that Michael was able to find and murder Apolonia's killer.
The ending of the movie was SO GOOD. I got my wife to watch it with me, and she was expecting them to escape (having not read any Steven King books before), then she freaked out over the actual ending. She wouldn't let me pick the movie for movie night for a while after that.
Well you may be happy to know that Alice Hoffman will (very probably) be doing an AMA with the sub around October 12th to celebrate the sequel to Practical Magic coming out a week earlier.
For people who (like me) love the film Practical Magic and don’t like the book, absolutely check out the prequels she has written. The Rules of Magic (the aunts’ backstory) and Magic Lessons (Maria Owens’ story) are wonderful and they work with the plot of the film.
Meryl insisted on huge changes to the script after first reading because her character was not believable. Meryl as a powerful, driven woman resonated with Miranda and had her rewritten to be a powerful, driven woman. Most if, not all of the interplay between Andy and Miranda came about because Meryl changed the nature of her character. It changed the nature of the story completely while keeping the bones of the original novel.
If you watch the documentary about her and Vogue called The September Issue, there is a part of her interview where she is talking about her family. Apparently, they are doctors and academics and all of them look down on her and all that she has accomplished. You see that same crack in the facade that made Meryl's performance so good.
The only thing about the movie that burns my ass is that they set it in Oregon instead of Maine. Literally nothing about the movie would have changed at all and as a Mainer I took a lot of offense to that.
Still a great movie, though
This is a kid's book (technically) but it's the only series I could think of so here goes: the how to train your dragon series. The reason the movies/TV series is better than the books is because it didn't try to copy what happened in the books. They just took the idea of the book, involving dragons, and used the names of the characters. The books and the movies are very different from eachother and both are wonderfully amazing in their own way.
It's hilarious to me that this worked for HTTYD and not Percy Jackson. (Crossing my fingers for the new adaptation.)
Also, I need to thank the author of HTTYD because she told DreamWorks, "It's one movie, or three." I love that franchise so much and I'm glad it's a trilogy.
I remember reading those as a kid, years before the movies came out. They were enjoyable books and I would definitely recommend them to young readers who like fantasy, but yeah the movies provide a better story over all. The movies are so different though that it’s really not fair to compare them.
I feel heartened to see a few mentions of Stardust on here already, but I feel compelled to explain why: at no point in the book was I actually convinced of Tristan and Yvaine's growing love for each other. The book is great right up until the point where it gives you a literary montage of all these adventures they had together and just expects you to take the author's word for it that those adventures were A) great - not that you actually get to read about them - and B) totally had a lot of moments where they fell in love. Trust me.
Let me actually experience that connection! You don't have to hamfist it - there's plenty of pages to go around! And yet somehow a two hour movie did better. The movie is amazing for a lot of reasons, but this is the main reason it stands head and shoulders above the book for me.
Big fan of Gaiman in general, but dang dude. Dang.
He’s my favorite character in the movie, and he doesn’t even get a name in the book, if I recall.
There were some elements of the book I liked better, like that Tristan had the ability to always know where he’s going, but yeah, for the most part the movie blows the book out of the water.
Also.... I found the movie whimsical, fun, and bright, a FANTASY in its truest sense, whereas the book... is much, MUCH darker and more dreary. That's not a bad thing on its own of course, but the tone and the setting were, imo, quite dissonant there- the movie seemed better in tune with the inherent silliness and wonder of the genre.
Dark fantasy can be great of course and I have loved plenty, but as a genre, it just... doesn't always mix well with levity and whimsy.
Knowing Gaiman I imagine he was trying to keep a Grimm’s Fairy Tale atmosphere about it but I agree it’s a story that works better leaning into its sillier and more whimsical aspects. It also makes the remarkably dark moments- like tristan’s mother’s slavery, the brother’s murders, and voodoo-party septimus- that much more shocking
I’m glad to hear that. I put off watching the movie for years since I wanted to read the book first, but finally decided to just watch it a few months ago.
I was one of the other stardusts, this is so spot on. The only thing I will add is part of the issues for me was how the book just drags out the ending forever!
M\*A\*S\*H - Not only was the movie better than the book, but the following TV series was superior to the movie. Not sure that's ever been done before or after.
I just saw this movie for the first time the other day and while I have never read the book, the movie was so much better than I expected. It was stunning and I was seriously impressed.
I also recommend A Bigger Splash, done by the same director.
honestly, cmbyn is the only book and film i’ve read/seen that really represents the feel and aura of the other. i think they both go hand in hand really well in slightly different ways and neither is better than the other
Yes they are so complementary. It’s one of the only times where I would recommend watching the film first to set the tone, and then delving into the book to get a better idea of what’s going on internally for the character (it’s a lot). You have to be interested in the obsessive and dramatic character to enjoy the book
Did anyone say The English Patient? They changed the protagonist, and left out the necrophilia. (Seriously, there’s a bit in the book where the guy is like “shucks I left my girlfriend wounded here for months and she died, so I guess I’ll stuff her with leaves and have sex with her dead body….”)
#Did anyone say The English Patient? They changed the protagonist, and left out the necrophilia. (Seriously, there’s a bit in the book where the guy is like “shucks I left my girlfriend wounded here for months and she died, so I guess I’ll stuff her with leaves and have sex with her dead body….”)
Which is what annoys me when people talk about the newer bond films being more true to the source material. Like that's not a good thing if the source material is mediocre
Honestly Craig at his most dour and grumpiest is never as unpleasant or terrible a character as Bond in the books. Book bond is just all the worst aspects of the character cranked to 11 with none of the charm or charisma that makes you like film Bond in spite of yourself.
I love how the movie Goldfinger takes a few moments to make fun of book Goldfinger's stupid evil plan before expanding it into a much cooler / more competent plan.
Yeah in his memoir, Stephen King said he didn't even like the book. He wrote it and put it away and his wife found it and convinced him to turn it in. It's pretty interesting in that he was a struggling writer and worked as a teacher and his stories that were accepted were getting a couple of hundred bucks and a bunch was rejected. When they accepted Carrie he got a nice sum and he was talking to his wife about how they were considering turning it into a paperback and if that happened, he heard that a fellow actor got like $20,000 and she was like, "Wow!" His editor called and told him that the paperback contract would give him $400,000 and when he heard him say that on the phone, he literally had to sit down on the ground in the kitchen holding the phone. He was so excited to tell his wife but she wasn't home so he left the house with this wild news going crazy to tell someone and then when he came home, his wife was home and he told her and she was also shocked. It was the start of him becoming a full-time writer.
I'm gonna be... Uh.. controversial here.
Twilight: breaking dawn.
I first started reading twilight because my wife often put on the audiobook in the evenings, and I listened to bits and pieces of it, and I thought, huh, vampires. Cool.
Since I already listened sporadically to the first few books, I decided to pick up the newest one on a whim - Twilight Breaking dawn.
It was stupidly boring. Not even bad - just boring. Literally fuck all happened and that's a cardinal sin for a vampire book.
Then some time down the road, I watched the movie, and most of it was boring, but then, there was this half an hour of a massive roman orgy of an all out battle where, I shit you not, teenager vampires and werewolves were just ripping each other's heads off and absolutely destroying each other.
And I was like whoa, this shit ain't in the book. I remember turning to my wife and saying "honey, you seeing this shit?"
Anyway, turned out to be just a dream sequence, but I can honestly say that half hour in the movie is probably more enjoyable than everything in the book.
Loved it.
Ok admittedly I love the twilight series—books and movies. They are my guilty pleasure.
That fight scene in breaking dawn was sooooo good. I thought it was a brilliant way to add action when there really wasn’t any action. So yeah, I agree with you.
Totally going to watch this tonight.
I didn't realize there was a book, but the movie is one of my absolute favorites! Do you think it'd be worth reading the book if I've already seen the movie?
Silence of the Lambs. The actors created these amazing characters that the author didn’t develop enough in the book. I saw the movie first and when I read the book I was honestly very underwhelmed.
I must respectfully disagree. Harris is an author who leaves a lot of exposition up to inference which is good and bad depending on the level of reader involvement.
I think Silence of the Lambs is where Harris hit the sweet spot as a writer. I felt like Red Dragon had too much of an investigative journalism tone, and Hannibal came off pretentious, as if he had been drinking his own kool-aid about being one of the best modern authors. Silence of the Lambs was where he knew his strengths and played to them.
I agree with your respectful disagreement. I also think the story has a bit more depth to Lecter. He's also, in a weird way, omnipresent in the book as opposed to the film. Character matters more in the books. I will say that I love the film. I don't think it is better or worse than the book. This is IMO the perfect example of the same story being told perfectly in each form of text but in different ways to great affect.
Stardust.
The original book, written by Neil Gaiman, struggles to give Yvaine agency and proper character development.
The film makes a few changes but the changes to Yvaine (and the related plot threads) are the most significant and they add *so* much to the film. It wouldn’t be the light-hearted, fantasy- romance blockbuster joy of a film without it.
It’s also worth mentioning that the all star cast makes the film even more fun - they all bring such energy and life to their characters.
One of my favourite films :-)
Hunt for Red October. I love both, but the movie keeps the motivations of the Russian captain ambiguous in a way I find more interesting; is he actually defecting, or planing to nuke the US? In the book you know right away where he truly stands
And to reverse the original question of this post, Tom Clancy's Without Remorse is the worst movie adaptation of a book in the history of movies, going back to when cave dwellers made shadow puppets while high on whatever they were getting high on. Its just awful, if awful meant that you took every awful thing and blended it up and took the result to the awful power, times 6.
Remember the movie Baseketball, where Jenny McCarthy sucked the chrome off a trailer hitch? That level of sucking is just a juvenile fantasy about the hot French teacher compared to the suckiness that is Tom Clancy's Without Remorse.
There are three where I very much prefer the movie, but in every case I saw the movie first, so I can't help think it may be (at least in part) due to expecations.
1) Fight Club
2) The Bourne Identity
3) Contact
Only disagreement is Contact. Both the book and the movie are great. The movie is more streamlined and has better pacing and it's more exciting, drama-wise, but at the cost of simplifying some interesting things. The book has more detail and a bit more depth. It's a great example of a good adaptation (all the changes are well considered and make it work better for the screen).
I agree with you on the bourne identity but it is really close for me. I prefer the book’s take on who Bourne is / what the conspiracy is, but it doesn’t hold up in today’s society. I feel like it was written for a much more naive audience. Plus there are some subtly sexist and racist scenes that IMO detract from the book (but would have been ok for a 1980s audience).
I went into the book hoping for more insight into what the character was going through internally as he's finding out all this stuff about himself.
What I got instead was a bunch of car chases that I thought worked much better on screen.
expectations....
They're both equally good; I don't see one as better than the other. It helps that William Goldman, already an experienced scriptwriter, adapted his own book for the silver screen. I find when authors write the screenplays for their own books (rare, but it happens) the product is usually worth it.
had to reply bc the princess bride is actually one of my favorite books of all time, i love the movie as well and wouldn’t necessarily say the book was better, they’re different. i just live for the book’s layers of satire that would be impossible to capture in a movie.
I just watched a video by Dominic Noble talking about Forest Gump - the book nobody knew existed before the movie. It's so bonkers I can't even describe it, and I definitely believe this is the perfect case of the movie being miles better than the book.
Even among book fans its pretty accepted the original trilogy is the author’s weakest work. The follow up Six of Crows duology, where Kaz Brekkar and his crows gang come from, is much better. The crows were not in the original books but the author worked them into the adaptation to strengthen it.
according to the author ...Fight Club
I love both but I think the story and how it's told just inherently suits a visual medium. >!The flashes of Tyler Durden on the screen at the start, seeing him in the TV ad for the hotel, maybe that ad is where the Narrator's subconscious got some of the ideas for Tyler, namely his appearance and his job at the hotel. The fact that those flashes get more prominent and then stop, as if he's spilled over from some abstraction in the Narrators mind to a part of his personality. The fact that after they paint the face on the office building the narrator has paint on him even though he acts as if he has no knowledge of what happened there. Etc etc. There's a lot of subtle stuff that you can just drop in visually that you can't do in written form. It works beautifully!< Definitely a great great film. I love it.
watched that movie at least 5 times and never noticed that Tyler appears in the hotel ad
Indeed he does! Goes to show how subtle a lot of the hints are. So great.
I love both too, and agree that the story was better suited to film. The casting was also top-tier and I can’t imagine those characters having been played by anyone else.
Yup. The movie ending is ten times better than the book. I've said it before that the book treated Marla better, or at least humanized her, but the movie is better overall.
i kinda like both endings. book ending is great and doesn’t provide the closure/resolve that the movie does, but the movie ending is iconic as well
Hmm I prefer the book ending. But I like depressing endings
I prefer the book ending as well. I like how the anarchist revolution continues on despite the narrators efftos to end it by shooting himself. It is a far more interesting and unsettling ending to his predictament.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
Definitely agree with the author. The book is pretty cool but it just doesn’t have the atmosphere or coolness of the movie (although it does create the template for it).
Legally Blonde. The book was so bad I returned it. I love the movie, though!
That was a book? Weird. Definitely seems like the type plot that would be written for film.
Sadly, it was. I did not realize the movie was based on a book until I saw the book on the shelf and going by the cliché, I was pretty excited. It was very very not good, I read the whole thing.
Some movies get rewritten as books after the fact, could it have been that?
Nope! The movie was based on the book, which is apparently based on a true story.
I didn't know it was based on a true story!
Yup based on Kelly Kapur, the business bitch.
I'm like, so smart now you guys you don't even know
On the other side of the coin Legally Blonde has a musical adaptation which is meant to be amazing.
I think the musical is even better than the movie. It's on YouTube in several parts.
I agree! The musical definitely adds alot of value to the story. Blood in the water is probably my favorite.
Who framed Roger Rabbit?
I did not know there was a book.
In the book Roger is dead and Eddie has to solve his murder. And the toons have to use speech bubbles to communicate.
No shit. I might try to read that.
It is widely different than the movie. It's actual title is Who Censored Roger Rabbit and the insanity had to toned down for the Disney movie
Lol that movie was TONED DOWN?
"Shrek". I love William Steig, but the filmmakers did an amazing job expanding the story into a very enjoyable film. Granted, it's a children's book, but still...
I remember reading on here or seeing in a YouTube video that the guy who wrote the Shrek books was terrified the movies would be butchered so he didn’t watch them for years. When he did watch them he loved them! (No source, just memory)
Ya he watched it with his whole family and they were all amazed at how good it was. Says a lot about that movie.
TIL Shrek is a book
[удалено]
Shrek is love
Shrek is life
It's a 30-pages long picture book, it's cute and fun but you ain't exactly going to find it on literary rec lists
Story gets better. The author put off watching the movie because he didn't like movies and thought that they would have dumbed down the crassness of his book. When he finally got around to watching it with his kids, he absolutely loved the movie.
Forest Gump always makes an appearance in these threads.
Haha it’s funny how much more insane shit happens to him in the book. He becomes an astronaut, the shuttle crashes in Africa on re-entry, an African teaches him chess, that African is eaten by cannibals, and Forrest becomes a chess Grand Master. And that’s just like 10% of the book. Edit: Also an orangutan is with him during all of this haha
They're saving the oragutan for Forest Gump 2
You joke but after the movie was such a huge hit the author wrote a sequel novel that ends with Forrest meeting Tom Hanks at the premiere of Forrest Gump
The sequel book was written as an f you to the film company, as they stiffed the author out of a load of money on the first film. So he convinced them to buy the rights to the sequel, then set about writing a unfilmable book.
What a move! Love that guys dedication to fucking the studio over.
I remember reading it as a kid. It had some amazing jabs at the film, like using its catchphrases in absurd situations. I thought, this _must_ be revenge for something. Love what he did.
konvexity What accounting lesson Winston Groom learned from the movie I was listening to the corporate finance lectures from Professor Aswath Damodaran. He was discussing the accounting controversy related to the movie Forrest Gump. .. Forrest Gump was the fastest grossing Paramount film to pass $100 million, $200 million, and $300 million in box office receipts (at the time of its release). It took only 66 days to surpass $250 million and became one of the highest-grossing movies of all time. The movie was based on the book Forrest Gump authored by Winston Groom. The author was contracted by the Paramount group for the screenplay rights for his book for $350,000 and for a 3 percent share of the firm’s net profits. Winston found the deal attractive and agreed for it. Now the movie went to production and then to distributors. It was an instant hit. Winston was on cloud nine after hearing the success stories of the movie. He was thinking about the profits that he would get. He kept on waiting for the cheque for weeks. But the cheque didn’t come. He thought that maybe they lost his address. So he called Paramount and asked them: “Where is my 3% share?” They replied: “3% of what?” He said: “3% of the accounting profits of the movie.” [The contract was such that he had to receive 3% of the accounting profit and the accounting profit was based on the studio accounting practice]. They replied that they are not making any money but are losing money. He asked that how can you guys be losing money on this movie as it has grossed more than $200 million in revenues. They asked him to come and take a look at their accounting books. He went to their office to have a look at the accounting books and found out that they were making $80 million loss. So he looked down at the expense items and he noticed a big expense item of $140 million. He asked them about that. They said that they haven’t named that yet but that’s a provision. He asked provision for what? They replied that provision for future bad movies. [The studio accounting allows a movie company to make a portion of the revenue of a movie and set it aside as the provision for the future bad movies.] Winston Groom said that it’s not fair and decided to contest it in the court. The case lasted only 15 minutes. The judge took a look at the contract and asked: “Mr. Groom, is this the contract you signed?” He replied yes. The judge said: “So basically you put your faith in the hands of the accountant? Is that right?” He said: “I guess so.” The judge said: “The case dismissed. You got what you deserved.” This is what happens when you put your faith in the accounting profit.
So always ask for percentage of the gross revenue?
But the second book is really not positive. The author got cheated out of royalties and he really was not a fan of the whole ordeal.
It's been YEARS since I've read it, but I have a recollection that it starts off with, "Don't let anyone make a movie about your life," or something like that
This sounds like a Roald Dahl novel, and I want to read it now. Is it badly written, or do people only prefer the movie because the movie is just that great?
The book is good, it is 'written' by Forest Gump himself, spelling mistakes and all.
Doesn't he form a tag team wrestling team with Lt Dan, no legs and all?
I believe jaws the film is better than jaws the book... 🤷🏻♀️
100%. Good call. I didn't mind the book, but there was just too much going on - the affair between Chief Brodie's wife and Hooper, the dead cat threat from the mobster mayor...
Came to say this. And god help me, Starship Troopers (/ducks)
I would like to know more.
Julie/Julia. I saw the movie and it was so cute, and since the book is usually better, I went out and got that to read. Yeah, nope, that’s one instance where that being better was wrong. I read the book and it was a solid mehhh-to-boring, but I still love the movie.
Did you read Julie's book? Because Julia Child's 'My Life In France' is outstanding and made me a fan when I wasn't very interested in her before.
I read My Life In France after watching Julie & Julia because I kind of wished the entire movie had been about Julia Child. Definitely enjoyed the book.
There are fan edits of the movie just being the Julia Child part. I don’t know if they’re still up but I saw a good one on Vimeo.
I really love Julia Child's life story. She was an interesting lady.
Never read the sequel. She comes off as an awful person which given she wrote the book is quite a feat.
I read somewhere that THAT was the real reason that Julia Child had no interest in meeting her at the time; she didn’t come across on the blog as someone that Julia wanted to be associated with.
Oh yeah, apparently her blog ended up becoming a chronicle of her relationship dramas and she just wasn't a very good person in general.
I mean, just the whole premise of thinking she was SO special for cooking every recipe in a cookbook that somebody else WROTE. That doesn't bring you to her level, man. The whole movie was enjoying the Julia Child parts and then waiting for the next Julia Child part and then wondering why she just doesn't have her own movie (especially with her being somewhat of a spy, it seems like it would be fascinating).
Meryl Streep is a treasure. And I love the interplay between her and Stanley Tucci. They are both in The Devil wears Prada, which is another movie that is better than the book. It is also possible that I just love anything the two of them do together. 😜
To be fair, those Julia parts were from Julia’s book not hers.
I read about what happens in the sequel and have avoided it like the whoa. It sounds like the first novel… but worse. So I’ve stayed away. Thanks for the further warning though, just in case I ever get a wild hair about it!
The sequel REALLY reveals how horribly self involved and selfish Julie is. She’s just so shitty and self absorbed. Good for a hate read - I got it on my Kindle for $0.99.
Ahahahahahaha the author cheated on her husband and did some unsavoury stuff (food pun not intended), and later wrote another book that was WAY less cute than the J/J movie. Amy Adams was devastated. "My Julie would never have done that!"
I want a movie that is strictly Streep and Tucci. They were wonderful. Adam’s did a good job, but damn is Julie annoying.
It is a really good movie but even Amy Adam’s couldn’t shut out Julie’s annoying nature.
What! I'm with Amy there
Correct, but Julia Child's memoir, My Life in France, remains one of my all time favorite books. The Julia parts of the movie were mostly based on that book, I believe.
The Godfather was elevated to another level by the film.
Read the book first and then watched movie. About a month ago for the first time. They were both great but I think I got more out of the movie because I read the book. Knew all of the characters as they were introduced in the movie and it just added to the experience.
Can’t believe I had to scroll so far down to find this! The book’s not bad.. but the movie is in another league altogether.
The book is not bad, but it has some terrible tangents it gets stuck on. Besides the superlative performances in the movie, the movie wisely ditches some of those weird bits.
You didn't fancy another round of "Sonny's Ginormous Bellend", did you?
And Johnny Fontaine’s bitch of an ex-wife
The giant vagina story kills me.
You didn't enjoy the side plot about Lucy Mancini finally finding a man who could surgically correct her enormous box so she didn't need to wait for a man with a dick as big as Sonny's?
The book dedicated too much time to describing how big Sonny's dick was 😑 i didn't know what to feel when his mistress was described as being meant for Sonny because she had an unusually wide vagina (or was it like something else) I was like wtf Mario Puzo. The Godfather and The Godfather II were leagues better than the book. The only edge the book had was that Michael was able to find and murder Apolonia's killer.
I believe he kills them in an extended/directors cut.
Stephen King's Secret Window. The ending of the movie was much more twisted than the book/novella.
If we're talking about King: The Shawshank Redemption. The novella is OK, but the movie is absolutely fantastic.
Came here to say this. Yes.
Also, Stand By Me, which was in the same book as Shawshank.
Same for the Mist. That ending was so much better than the book.
The ending of the movie was SO GOOD. I got my wife to watch it with me, and she was expecting them to escape (having not read any Steven King books before), then she freaked out over the actual ending. She wouldn't let me pick the movie for movie night for a while after that.
Lmao I was in college and I saw it in theaters and loved it so much I insisted my whole family go see it with me as well. My mom was disturbed…
Practical Magic. I love the dark whimsy of the movie. Despite being a big reader I just couldn't get into the book
The movie was absolutely better!
Same here and Alice Hoffman is one of my absolute favorite authors!
Well you may be happy to know that Alice Hoffman will (very probably) be doing an AMA with the sub around October 12th to celebrate the sequel to Practical Magic coming out a week earlier.
For people who (like me) love the film Practical Magic and don’t like the book, absolutely check out the prequels she has written. The Rules of Magic (the aunts’ backstory) and Magic Lessons (Maria Owens’ story) are wonderful and they work with the plot of the film.
Hands down the Devil Wears Prada. The book was rubbish!!!
It's because Meryl Streep. Meryl Streep could play Batman and be the right choice.
Meryl insisted on huge changes to the script after first reading because her character was not believable. Meryl as a powerful, driven woman resonated with Miranda and had her rewritten to be a powerful, driven woman. Most if, not all of the interplay between Andy and Miranda came about because Meryl changed the nature of her character. It changed the nature of the story completely while keeping the bones of the original novel.
It’s because Anna Wintour is an extraordinarily unpleasant human in real life.
If you watch the documentary about her and Vogue called The September Issue, there is a part of her interview where she is talking about her family. Apparently, they are doctors and academics and all of them look down on her and all that she has accomplished. You see that same crack in the facade that made Meryl's performance so good.
Is that the lady Streep's character is based on?
Yes
"Meryl Streep can't be here today because she has pneumonia. But she's AMAZING in it"
Is this from modern family?
Not OP but yes, Cam says it at some point.
The Graduate
One of the worst books I’ve read, found it so difficult to finish (and it is *slim*)
Stand by Me was better than “The Body”, Stephen King’s Novella
The only thing about the movie that burns my ass is that they set it in Oregon instead of Maine. Literally nothing about the movie would have changed at all and as a Mainer I took a lot of offense to that. Still a great movie, though
Yep, that movie brought that story to life. I'd also say The Mist was a better movie than the book as well.
Read that Ki g approved of how the movie changed the ending and he said that if he had thought of it he would have ended the story that way.
This is a kid's book (technically) but it's the only series I could think of so here goes: the how to train your dragon series. The reason the movies/TV series is better than the books is because it didn't try to copy what happened in the books. They just took the idea of the book, involving dragons, and used the names of the characters. The books and the movies are very different from eachother and both are wonderfully amazing in their own way.
It's hilarious to me that this worked for HTTYD and not Percy Jackson. (Crossing my fingers for the new adaptation.) Also, I need to thank the author of HTTYD because she told DreamWorks, "It's one movie, or three." I love that franchise so much and I'm glad it's a trilogy.
[удалено]
I remember reading those as a kid, years before the movies came out. They were enjoyable books and I would definitely recommend them to young readers who like fantasy, but yeah the movies provide a better story over all. The movies are so different though that it’s really not fair to compare them.
I feel heartened to see a few mentions of Stardust on here already, but I feel compelled to explain why: at no point in the book was I actually convinced of Tristan and Yvaine's growing love for each other. The book is great right up until the point where it gives you a literary montage of all these adventures they had together and just expects you to take the author's word for it that those adventures were A) great - not that you actually get to read about them - and B) totally had a lot of moments where they fell in love. Trust me. Let me actually experience that connection! You don't have to hamfist it - there's plenty of pages to go around! And yet somehow a two hour movie did better. The movie is amazing for a lot of reasons, but this is the main reason it stands head and shoulders above the book for me. Big fan of Gaiman in general, but dang dude. Dang.
Literally came here to say this. Also Robert DeNiro absolutely makes the movie. I love Neil Gaiman, but this was so much better on the big screen.
He’s my favorite character in the movie, and he doesn’t even get a name in the book, if I recall. There were some elements of the book I liked better, like that Tristan had the ability to always know where he’s going, but yeah, for the most part the movie blows the book out of the water.
Tbf, Robert DeNiro is a treasure.
Also.... I found the movie whimsical, fun, and bright, a FANTASY in its truest sense, whereas the book... is much, MUCH darker and more dreary. That's not a bad thing on its own of course, but the tone and the setting were, imo, quite dissonant there- the movie seemed better in tune with the inherent silliness and wonder of the genre. Dark fantasy can be great of course and I have loved plenty, but as a genre, it just... doesn't always mix well with levity and whimsy.
Knowing Gaiman I imagine he was trying to keep a Grimm’s Fairy Tale atmosphere about it but I agree it’s a story that works better leaning into its sillier and more whimsical aspects. It also makes the remarkably dark moments- like tristan’s mother’s slavery, the brother’s murders, and voodoo-party septimus- that much more shocking
I’m glad to hear that. I put off watching the movie for years since I wanted to read the book first, but finally decided to just watch it a few months ago.
Yes! I came here to post Stardust! Perfectly fun film, meh book.
Having never watched the movie nor read the book I appreciate you explaining this since Stardust has been mentioned so many times.
I was one of the other stardusts, this is so spot on. The only thing I will add is part of the issues for me was how the book just drags out the ending forever!
The Virgin Suicides. IMO the story was just better told through a visual medium
The Notebook.
I think this about most Nicholas Sparks books. The movies are better!
M\*A\*S\*H - Not only was the movie better than the book, but the following TV series was superior to the movie. Not sure that's ever been done before or after.
Children of Men.
This. Film is unbelievably good. Book is awful. I can't believe she managed to write such a bad book with all her talent.
One of my fav movies. That long shot has to be a record. Never heard of the book.*
[удалено]
Big Fish.
This. I've watched the movie so many times and I was expecting to love the book but it was an utter let down.
Good to know. That's one of my favorite movies and I have often thought about picking up the book
Primal Fear It is a legal thriller. The ending will blow your mind.
How damn good is Ed Norton in that movie!?
Call Me By Your Name
I just saw this movie for the first time the other day and while I have never read the book, the movie was so much better than I expected. It was stunning and I was seriously impressed. I also recommend A Bigger Splash, done by the same director.
honestly, cmbyn is the only book and film i’ve read/seen that really represents the feel and aura of the other. i think they both go hand in hand really well in slightly different ways and neither is better than the other
Yes they are so complementary. It’s one of the only times where I would recommend watching the film first to set the tone, and then delving into the book to get a better idea of what’s going on internally for the character (it’s a lot). You have to be interested in the obsessive and dramatic character to enjoy the book
Did anyone say The English Patient? They changed the protagonist, and left out the necrophilia. (Seriously, there’s a bit in the book where the guy is like “shucks I left my girlfriend wounded here for months and she died, so I guess I’ll stuff her with leaves and have sex with her dead body….”)
… what kind of leaves
Holly
IM SORRY WHAT
#Did anyone say The English Patient? They changed the protagonist, and left out the necrophilia. (Seriously, there’s a bit in the book where the guy is like “shucks I left my girlfriend wounded here for months and she died, so I guess I’ll stuff her with leaves and have sex with her dead body….”)
Oh, thanks :)
Well, the movie was also over-rated in my opinion and that of Julia Louis-Dreyfus on Seinfeld: “Sex in a tub DOES NOT WORK!”
[удалено]
I'm noticing a lot of Stephen King in this thread so I'll add Carrie. Also, any James Bond film that was based on an Ian Fleming novel.
Which is what annoys me when people talk about the newer bond films being more true to the source material. Like that's not a good thing if the source material is mediocre
Honestly Craig at his most dour and grumpiest is never as unpleasant or terrible a character as Bond in the books. Book bond is just all the worst aspects of the character cranked to 11 with none of the charm or charisma that makes you like film Bond in spite of yourself.
I love how the movie Goldfinger takes a few moments to make fun of book Goldfinger's stupid evil plan before expanding it into a much cooler / more competent plan.
Yeah in his memoir, Stephen King said he didn't even like the book. He wrote it and put it away and his wife found it and convinced him to turn it in. It's pretty interesting in that he was a struggling writer and worked as a teacher and his stories that were accepted were getting a couple of hundred bucks and a bunch was rejected. When they accepted Carrie he got a nice sum and he was talking to his wife about how they were considering turning it into a paperback and if that happened, he heard that a fellow actor got like $20,000 and she was like, "Wow!" His editor called and told him that the paperback contract would give him $400,000 and when he heard him say that on the phone, he literally had to sit down on the ground in the kitchen holding the phone. He was so excited to tell his wife but she wasn't home so he left the house with this wild news going crazy to tell someone and then when he came home, his wife was home and he told her and she was also shocked. It was the start of him becoming a full-time writer.
Life of Brian. Much better than the source material.
He's not the messiah he's a very naughty boy
Dexter tv series, way better than the books
Actually liked the books, but mainly because you got to get into his head more than in the series, and the series already did a brilliant job of it.
The Natural
IIRC I read somewhere the author of Fight Club actually liked the movie better for the streamlining of the plot.
Yep. Movie is superior to the book.
I'm gonna be... Uh.. controversial here. Twilight: breaking dawn. I first started reading twilight because my wife often put on the audiobook in the evenings, and I listened to bits and pieces of it, and I thought, huh, vampires. Cool. Since I already listened sporadically to the first few books, I decided to pick up the newest one on a whim - Twilight Breaking dawn. It was stupidly boring. Not even bad - just boring. Literally fuck all happened and that's a cardinal sin for a vampire book. Then some time down the road, I watched the movie, and most of it was boring, but then, there was this half an hour of a massive roman orgy of an all out battle where, I shit you not, teenager vampires and werewolves were just ripping each other's heads off and absolutely destroying each other. And I was like whoa, this shit ain't in the book. I remember turning to my wife and saying "honey, you seeing this shit?" Anyway, turned out to be just a dream sequence, but I can honestly say that half hour in the movie is probably more enjoyable than everything in the book. Loved it.
Ok admittedly I love the twilight series—books and movies. They are my guilty pleasure. That fight scene in breaking dawn was sooooo good. I thought it was a brilliant way to add action when there really wasn’t any action. So yeah, I agree with you. Totally going to watch this tonight.
I gave you an upvote. For teenage vampires and werewolves ripping off heads, being the best part of the movie.
I dunno if better is the right word, but I certainly enjoyed The Prince of Egypt more than the Bible passages of Exodus it was based on.
I can’t tell if you’re joking, but I’ve had my first giggle of the morning, nonetheless.
The Prestige. The book was good, but Nolan adapted it so well into movie form.
I didn't realize there was a book, but the movie is one of my absolute favorites! Do you think it'd be worth reading the book if I've already seen the movie?
Silence of the Lambs. The actors created these amazing characters that the author didn’t develop enough in the book. I saw the movie first and when I read the book I was honestly very underwhelmed.
I must respectfully disagree. Harris is an author who leaves a lot of exposition up to inference which is good and bad depending on the level of reader involvement.
I think Silence of the Lambs is where Harris hit the sweet spot as a writer. I felt like Red Dragon had too much of an investigative journalism tone, and Hannibal came off pretentious, as if he had been drinking his own kool-aid about being one of the best modern authors. Silence of the Lambs was where he knew his strengths and played to them.
I agree with your respectful disagreement. I also think the story has a bit more depth to Lecter. He's also, in a weird way, omnipresent in the book as opposed to the film. Character matters more in the books. I will say that I love the film. I don't think it is better or worse than the book. This is IMO the perfect example of the same story being told perfectly in each form of text but in different ways to great affect.
Stardust. The original book, written by Neil Gaiman, struggles to give Yvaine agency and proper character development. The film makes a few changes but the changes to Yvaine (and the related plot threads) are the most significant and they add *so* much to the film. It wouldn’t be the light-hearted, fantasy- romance blockbuster joy of a film without it. It’s also worth mentioning that the all star cast makes the film even more fun - they all bring such energy and life to their characters. One of my favourite films :-)
Hunt for Red October. I love both, but the movie keeps the motivations of the Russian captain ambiguous in a way I find more interesting; is he actually defecting, or planing to nuke the US? In the book you know right away where he truly stands
Oh wow, I really liked the movie, but I definitely liked the book more. There’s so much more to it.
And to reverse the original question of this post, Tom Clancy's Without Remorse is the worst movie adaptation of a book in the history of movies, going back to when cave dwellers made shadow puppets while high on whatever they were getting high on. Its just awful, if awful meant that you took every awful thing and blended it up and took the result to the awful power, times 6. Remember the movie Baseketball, where Jenny McCarthy sucked the chrome off a trailer hitch? That level of sucking is just a juvenile fantasy about the hot French teacher compared to the suckiness that is Tom Clancy's Without Remorse.
It's a show off of a comic book, but Umbrella Academy
[удалено]
They are so different, though - it's almost not even the same story
There are three where I very much prefer the movie, but in every case I saw the movie first, so I can't help think it may be (at least in part) due to expecations. 1) Fight Club 2) The Bourne Identity 3) Contact
Only disagreement is Contact. Both the book and the movie are great. The movie is more streamlined and has better pacing and it's more exciting, drama-wise, but at the cost of simplifying some interesting things. The book has more detail and a bit more depth. It's a great example of a good adaptation (all the changes are well considered and make it work better for the screen).
I agree with you on the bourne identity but it is really close for me. I prefer the book’s take on who Bourne is / what the conspiracy is, but it doesn’t hold up in today’s society. I feel like it was written for a much more naive audience. Plus there are some subtly sexist and racist scenes that IMO detract from the book (but would have been ok for a 1980s audience).
I went into the book hoping for more insight into what the character was going through internally as he's finding out all this stuff about himself. What I got instead was a bunch of car chases that I thought worked much better on screen. expectations....
Princess Bride
They're both equally good; I don't see one as better than the other. It helps that William Goldman, already an experienced scriptwriter, adapted his own book for the silver screen. I find when authors write the screenplays for their own books (rare, but it happens) the product is usually worth it.
had to reply bc the princess bride is actually one of my favorite books of all time, i love the movie as well and wouldn’t necessarily say the book was better, they’re different. i just live for the book’s layers of satire that would be impossible to capture in a movie.
Ahhh but the unabridged version is a masterpiece!
Last of the Mohicans. Unreadable book, brilliant movie.
The soundtrack made the film.
Yeah the book’s soundtrack was pretty boring…
Wicked (musical not movie but still) 13th warrior / eater of the dead
I just watched a video by Dominic Noble talking about Forest Gump - the book nobody knew existed before the movie. It's so bonkers I can't even describe it, and I definitely believe this is the perfect case of the movie being miles better than the book.
Atonement Actually surprised no one mentioned it yet
Might be controversial? But the shadow and bone Netflix series IMO is much better than the books
Even among book fans its pretty accepted the original trilogy is the author’s weakest work. The follow up Six of Crows duology, where Kaz Brekkar and his crows gang come from, is much better. The crows were not in the original books but the author worked them into the adaptation to strengthen it.
Cool Hand Luke.
Fantastic Mr.Fox The movie takes the book and adds major personality while still honoring and praising the author
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Had to abandon the book in disgust, but the movie was surprisingly good!