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

"I feel that it's somewhat cheating (in regards to this question) for films like Slumdog Millionaire, Forrest Gump, and Jojo Rabbit because they aren't even trying to be faithful adaptations. They take a lot of liberties and go in a lot of different directions than the source material. So whether it's even the same story as the book Q&A on which it's based is debatable. But I certainly enjoyed it more."

"Because Val Jean's inner debate lasts about 100 pages and the opening number is about a third of the book. It just goes on and on."

"The book had too many coordinates and directions. The movie felt more like a story."

smileyeiley agreed: "The visuals of the landscape add so much in the movie too."

"The ending of the book was so freaking stupid it almost made me not watch the movie. It was like the author wanted to just have a shocking ending instead of an ending that actually makes sense in the narrative."

"I think Arrival was better, and that's coming from someone who really liked the short story. The movie is just better at telling that story overall."

 

Brenkin comments: "I tend to agree because the film really brings out the story and makes it more digestible. That being said, Ted Chiang is easily one of the greatest science fiction authors of all time."

"It was worse because the movie's puzzle plot made little sense (you're telling me no one in the history of the billion-dollar puzzle thought to go backward, movie?). But it was better because it cut out a lot of the neckbeard stuff in the book. Like how the protagonist spends 3 pages explaining differences in Atari games to someone, and then everyone claps because of how awesome it was."

 

Fluff_E replied: "I often use this book as an example of something that would've made a killer 6 episode series. After listening to the audiobook, then watching the movie, I sorely missed a lot of the nerdy details and some of the character building that got me extremely immersed in the audiobook."

"Rachel McAdams brought flair and charisma that wasn’t in the book."

 

Tabak5 replied: "Frankly I'd say that about any Nicholas Sparks book. I'm not a fan of his writing style at all. I got so bored trying to read The Last Song but found the movie pretty cute."

"Just because it couldn't possibly have been any worse."

 

big_ringer comments: "Take away the abusive and stalker-ish aspects of the story and you're still left with characters with zero chemistry with each other, a plot that goes nowhere, and a writing style reminiscent of an adolescent girl who figured out what happens when she wears tight jeans and crosses her legs just right."

"I watched the movie and loved it so much that I bought the book trilogy. The movie is beautiful but reading the book made me realize that it's the cinematography and acting that makes the movie so good - the actual plotline is really cheesy. The books are also written in a really simple way, for a much younger audience."

"The book is great but McCarthy’s style of writing makes it pretty difficult to read and follow the flow of what’s going on. Meanwhile, the movie has you on the edge of your seat, has a very eerie feel to it and the casting is very spot on."

"The book that this movie is based off of was critically panned, but director Mike Nichols took interest in the absurd source material and directed one of the highest-grossing films of all time."

"The book had no scope."

"Matilda (the character), was a hell of a lot more likable in the film than in the book."

"The film only depicted the first half of the book, which is great because the book devolves into stupid, incoherent drivel after that. Seriously, the author had a good thing going for the first 220 or so pages, some really good characterisation and chills, but then it got dumb. The novel should’ve stopped where the film did, instead of basically adding a half-assed, nonsensical sequel that nobody asked for as the second act. Netflix actually did a fantastic adaptation of the book, and the film is far superior to Adam Neville’s novel."

"The book isn’t bad, but the movie makes you feel for all the characters. I saw the movie before reading the book, so I may have expected too much from the book".

"A very hard read with the given vernacular. The movie makes everything a lot better offering a visual to match all of the nonsense/slang words."

"The comic event that it is based on doesn't make a ton of sense, it misses out on a lot of opportunites, and Tony Stark is strawmanned. The movie makes all the character motivations clear and presents both sides equally. This is a great example of improving the execution of an interesting idea with a second crack. Batman: Under The Red Hood is another example of this."

"The book had a slow pace that didn't create the same atmosphere as the movie."

DrPilkington comments: "I think the only thing I liked better in the movie was that terrifying bear thing. Otherwise, they're too different, the director even said he read the book once, and never went back to it so he could go off his impression of the book. But that book would have been near impossible to adapt accurately. The way the indescribable is described could never be filmed."