When are movies better than the books?

[cannastop]

When I was younger, I was always encouraged to read the book before seeing the movie, like with Harry Potter or Holes. The books are better than the movies, they said.

 

But there are still definitely movies that are much more influential and critically acclaimed than their source material.

 

The Godfather and The Godfather Part II are both based on a best seller that is now out of print.

 

Barry Lyndon is based on a minor William Makepeace Thackeray novel.

 

I didn't even realize that Psycho was based on a novel until I double checked. Vertigo's source material seems little read today as well.

 

There are many examples of best sellers that don't get much literary respect that are turned into acclaimed movies, of course.

[Kalo]

Captain  America The Winter Solider is better than the comic that it's based on. 

 

I'm not going to say they are better, but there are things I liked better about the Lord of the Rings movies then the books (not The hobbit, that book is miles above the movies)

 

 

[Melosh]

Film SHOWS life, books TALK about life;so for me film (particularly animation) will always be the most powerful way to tell a story.

[Melosh]

Just now, Melosh said:

Film SHOWS life, books TALK about life;so for me film (particularly animation) will always be the most powerful way to tell a story.

It seems I went off topic. (but I’ll just leave that quote.)

[Jamiem]

I prefer every Shinkai film to the Manga and Novels that he writes concurrently along side said films. I also prefer A Silent Voice to its Manga counterpart although that is probably a minority opinion. 

 

As for western works I think that the LoTR series is more compact (I know it’s still 10+ hours with the extended editions) in film form and I prefer again probably in the minority on this one.

 

The Wizard of Oz, Life of Pi and The Godfather would be my picks for films that I think most people would agree are better than the novel.

[35MM-18]

I haven't read Peter Venchley's novel Jaws, but I have heard that the film is leagues better (Steven Spielberg, Carl Gottblieb, Howard Sackler and Benchley himself shaved off a number of subplots and just focused the film on the shark, from what I've heard).

 

As for what I have read:

• While I thought Ready Player One was okay, the film was certainly better
• The Princess Bride-then again, I still really liked the book
• Goldfinger-in the film, Goldfinger plans to set off a nuclear device and irradiate the gold in Fort Knox, destablising the US economy; in the book, he plans to literally steal it out of the vaults; three guesses which version's better; Bond's seduction of Pussy Galore is also better, though still a little problematic

[lilmac]

I know its anathema to say this but the LOTR films are pretty close!

[MOVIEGUY]

I'm not much of a reader so it's usually the film by default. Honestly it's almost always whichever one I read or watched first, because that's the version that I've got in my head. For example the entire time I was reading One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest I was trying to picture Jack Nicholson and the book keeps describing him as a big burly redheaded lumberjack looking dude and it seemed wrong. 

 

The Fight Club movie I'd say is objectively better than the book.

[CoolioD1]

always

[Spidey Freak]

When the book is not all that great to begin with (American Psycho).

 

Then there are interesting cases like Stardust where I enjoy the movie way more than the book it is based on, even though the book itself is strong. Some of the stuff that they did with tertiary characters like Captain Shakespeare and Primus were definitely better than Gaiman's stuff, and even the parts that deviated from stronger aspects in the books like the Witch Queen worked in the movie as well.

[Nuadagar]

I liked the movie Fight Club more than the book. I cannot say the same about the legendary book All Quiet on the Western Front. Comparing the book and the movie makes a huge difference. Recently I wrote an essay about it, check my source to read more information. The harsh realities of war force soldiers to undergo drastic personality transformations making them feel disconnected from their previous way of life. The war separates them from their past both physically and psychologically. Unfortunately, we don't see these subtle moments in the movie.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Nuadagar

[Kalo]

I'd say in general when a movie is great it is usually better then the books, most book enthusiasts complain that a movie is not as good as the books if it doesn't follow the book to a fault, that would be really bad if most movies did this, most books are overall long and have tons of filler in them, it doesn't give much room for artistic touch either, I love both LotR books and movies, but I'd say the movies are slightly better just because of how masterfully they are done. Catching Fire and Mockingjay Part 2 are better then the books imo. what can make a movie worse then a book is when they try to shove as much from the book as possible in it and there for shorten all the scenes and you lose depth, Divergent felt a bit this way. (not a great book by any means but I enjoyed it) and the movie was O.K. but felt really rushed and surface at parts. better to create your own pace for the film while trying to stay faithful to the tone and message of the book as opposed to the content in it. Dune would be awful if it tried to stick 100% to the book imo, and thankfully I don't think that will be the case.