58 Movies That Are Better Than The Books They Were Based On

"Felt the Bible wasn’t as funny and where was Alan Rickman?"

"It was part of a four-part novella release by Stephen King. The story was very short but very well written. I just feel like the movie really captured the spirit of the story and gave some depth to the characters. Plus, the acting was great."

"John Hammond from Jurassic Park was much better in the movie. In the book, he was kind of your standard greedy businessman. In the movie was a dreamy idealist with good intentions, which made it so much more heartbreaking when the park inevitably failed."

blazedblueberry comments: "I actually also noticed they switched the little boy and girl characters in the book and movie. In the book, the little girl is basically useless and whines and complains the whole time, while the boy saves the day almost exclusively. I thought it was cooler for the movie to split up the character traits more evenly between the two."

"I found Buttercup's character way worse in the book, even to a point where I was like okay dude cut ties you're better off without her, and in the movie I never feel that really."

 

reconjsh comments: "For fans of the movie, there’s a book called “As You Wish” by Cary Elwes about the behind-the-scenes stories of making the movie. It’s a great and funny read. There’s crazy stuff like Andre the Giant's 16-second farts and him passing out in a hotel lobby because he drinks alcohol by the barrel. Or Mandy Patinkin slapping Andre because he wasn’t saying his lines fast enough."

"They took a 36-page book and turned it into the greatest movie of all time."

"Jaws, because everyone in the novel is a terrible person, and a lot of the tension in the film is removed because the guys hunting the shark just get to go home every night in the book."

 

Podlubnyi comments: "Steven Spielberg said when he read the novel he found himself rooting for the shark because the human characters were so unlikeable. The movie got rid of unnecessary subplots like the Mayor's involvement with the Mafia and Ellen Brody having an affair with Hooper."

 

cooscoos3 replied: "The movie got rid of the unnecessary subplots like the Mayor's involvement with the Mafia and Ellen Brody having an affair with Hooper. Sounds like there was so much subplot, if they made it today it would be a trilogy."

" Even Steven King agreed."

 

User replied: " The ending really went the darkest freaking route possible and that took a lot of guts from the filmmakers."

"Forest Gump was way better that the book it was based on."

 

CandyAppleSauce replied: "Came here for this. Read the book in high school because I loved the movie (the soundtrack for the movie was my favorite album for most of my junior year), but that was just...it was something, anyway. That being said, Groom did get the right 'flavors' of the Deep South and especially Alabama into that book. Still, the movie was better."

"The book had a better ending, but it was written in such bizarre style it was a chore to read. And it's a short book too."

 

"This just in, did you guys know that the author Chuck Palahniuk also liked the movie better than the book?"

"It’s my favorite book of all time, but goddamn that movie is incredible. Wes Anderson just made it his own thing. The movie has so much more characters. Mr. Fox in the movie is so charming and intelligent, but also 10 times more arrogant than he was in the books. But he makes up for it in the end. Also, his backstory with the wolf is amazing. Mr. Fox is also so much goddamn better. In the book, she literally did nothing except cook the huge meal at the end. The scene in the movie where she fights Rat with a chain still gets me pumped up. And don’t even get me started on Ash and Kristofferson. Oh my god, what a goddamn improvement from the three small foxes from the books. Ash is so goddamn relatable, and Kristofferson is so lovable. Their parts in the movie were my favorites."

"I found the book boring but the film resonates even decades after I watched it."

"The book was supposed to be written as film-noir, but it ends up as a disjointed mess. The characters are there, but they have none of the charms of the movie. Eddie isn't a good man, who's ruining his life with booze after the loss of his brother; he's a drunk asshole, just because. Roger is dead. Etc...The plot is also different; the movie took the idea of humans and Toons interacting, and went in a completely different direction." res30stupid replied: "The book was called 'Who Censored Roger Rabbit' with the censoring being akin to murder. The sequel stories are sequels to the film, not the original book."

"In the books the dragons are little and caught to fish and do other chores."

 

catwizard727 replied: "To be fair, the only things that the books and movies share are some names and other things like that."

"Sets it up really well for the dad to save the boy at the last minute, and then he doesn't get there in time. Much more hard-hitting than the book, where they don't realize what happened till much later."

Shintoho replied: "See I always thought the book worked better because it presented things from the kid's perspective, who doesn't really understand what's going on, so it takes half the book before you realize that they're living at a death camp and his father is the commandant."

"While the book explained the characters better, the movie was so beautifully done and tells a story about compassion and life that the book doesn't."

The book was just a bunch of rules."

"Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Neil Gaiman, and the Stardust book was really good, but the movie was absolutely enchanting. I mean, seeing Robert DeNiro as Captain Shakespeare? Life-changing. Not to mention a much better ending."

"I have admiration for the people who made the story for the screen because the book is nothing similar. Amazing movie that came out of a very meh book."

"In the book, Dunbar stays with the natives and I felt it was out of character with what had happened before. In the book, he is even packing his things to leave, but it's then convinced to stay. I feel the movie was a better ending. Plus the sheer epic scope of the landscapes and the buffalo hunt were even more incredible than I pictured in the book. That movie is one of the greatest westerns ever made."

beets_bears_bubblegm replied: "Also, the soundtrack brings me to tears, without watching the movie. It was incredible."

"I keep telling people they should be considered two different narratives, book and movie, but man David Fincher blew it out of the park with his adaptation."