# Is the book always more enjoyable than the movie? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 16, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224 "2003-12-16T01:04:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/41 "2003-12-16T13:51:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rabid Child \* > \*\*It was supposed to be that way in “American Psycho”, although I do agree with you. The point was to paint Patrick Bateman as an extremely shallow guy, more concerned with the different shampoos he used or the Whitney Huston CDs he listened to instead of the people he killed. I think the movie brought that side out far better than the book. > \*\* Yeah, at least far more economically than the book. I liked the point of it all. But, you don’t need to batter the reader over the head with it to the point of boredom and at the cost of narrative. The movie got the point across just as well, and had a better balance between the plot and the details. ---
**Author:** ![Caprese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a9a28c/32.png) [@Caprese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caprese)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/42 "2003-12-16T14:40:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Trunk \* > \*\* > How about **The Orchid Thief**? I never read the book, though. > > \*\* I liked both _Adaptation_ as well as its origin, _The Orchid Thief._ But both were so different from each other, I am not sure you could judge how well _Adaptation_ was ‘adapted’ from Susan Orlean’s book. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/43 "2003-12-16T14:43:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Number Six \* > \*\* > W. P. Kinsella’s comments on the dustcover of the laserdisc for _Field of Dreams_, based on his book _Shoeless Joe_, indicate that the wholesale changes made to his story in putting it on screen were nearly all improvements. > > \*\* I’m in complete agreement with Mr. Kinsella. ---
**Author:** ![unixrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3ec8ea/32.png) [@unixrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unixrat)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/44 "2003-12-16T14:51:48Z")
IIRC, Chuck Pa-whoozit, author of _Fight Club_, said that he thought the movie was better and liked their ending. I agree with him. In the book, The Guy _doesn’t_ fails to blow up the building (or Tyler Durden doesn’t, I guess, since ‘he’ mixed it with sawdust. He wakes up in a mental institution with the orderlies saying ‘Good to see you, sir. Hope to have you back soon.’ ---
**Author:** ![DeadlyAccurate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@DeadlyAccurate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadlyAccurate)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/45 "2003-12-16T15:34:47Z")
I think a lot of times it also depends on which one you experience first. I’ve read novels and then watched the movie and couldn’t believe how they ruined it. My husband, not having read that same novel, enjoyed the movie on its own merits. I’ve never read the LOTR trilogy, so I’m able to completely enjoy the movies without any preconceived notion of what should happen. I like the idea someone above posted about sometimes bad books make great movies. Some stories are created for the wrong format. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Elvis_Rojo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/46 "2003-12-16T16:42:10Z")
Another Michael Chriton book…_Eaters of the Dead_ was made into **The Thirteenth Warrior** , and I found the movie to be a hell of a lot better than the book. I like what the book tried to do, but there was really no expanse of the main character…he never grew, never changed, never did anything but come to the conclusion that it’s okay to sleep around, whereas in the movie he developes and grows a hell of a lot. It was a great fantasy/action film and a rather mediocre book. ---
**Author:** ![Sinungaling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/838e76/32.png) [@Sinungaling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinungaling)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/47 "2003-12-16T17:13:26Z")
What about _Last of the Mohicans_? I tried to read the book, I really did, but come on – how could Hawkeye be called “Natty Bumpo”? What kind of crap name is that, I ask you? ---
**Author:** ![PoorYorick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PoorYorick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PoorYorick)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/48 "2003-12-16T17:40:18Z")
This came up in another thread: I thought that the adaptation to Tom Wolfe’s _The Right Stuff_ a great adapatation of a great book. I thought that the differences between the movie and book were logical, both leaning to the strengths of their respective media. ---
**Author:** ![Mal\_Adroit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@Mal\_Adroit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mal_Adroit)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/49 "2003-12-16T18:04:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dooku \* > \*\*(re: Hannibal) > > …all that nonsense at the end where Hannibal uses a bunch of drugs to turn Clarice into his willing lover and accomplice and they live happily ever after \*\* Uh, I thought that was brilliant. And when I read it, I remember thinking, they’ll never have the balls to end the movie this way. Surprise, surprise. ---
**Author:** ![Herge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a183cd/32.png) [@Herge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Herge)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/50 "2003-12-16T18:50:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Trunk \* > \*\*That’s really funny you say this. When I saw the thread title, I immediately thought of American Psycho, because… > > that’s my fallback example of a movie that blew the book away. > > I thought the book was unreadable. On and on and on he rambled about the same stuff over and over. Whoever did the screenplay not only served as an adapter but did what an editor should have done in the first place: removed at least 50% of what’s in the book. \*\* I think its debatable that the book was better than the movie, and vice versa. Personally, I didn’t mind reading pages and pages about Bateman’s excercise routine and what suit hes wearing etc. This banality was set against the psychotic episodes in which he turns into a crazed animal. I would say the movie left out more than 75% of what happens in the book, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. It wasn’t a bad movie, but I found the book far more engrossing and disturbing. Its a matter of personal preference, of course. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/51 "2003-12-16T23:05:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by unixrat \* > \*\*IIRC, Chuck Pa-whoozit, author of _Fight Club_, said that he > thought the movie was better and liked their ending. > > I agree with him. > > In the book, The Guy _doesn’t_ fails to blow up the building (or Tyler Durden doesn’t, I guess, since ‘he’ mixed it with sawdust. He wakes up in a mental institution with the orderlies saying ‘Good to see you, sir. Hope to have you back soon.’ > \*\* Question regarding the ending That end was meant to imply the guy was completely nuts and was imagining people calling him sir and being part of his group, right? If so, then is he totally nuts through the whole thing, or what? Or did I misread the ending? ---
**Author:** ![Jurph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jurph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurph)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/52 "2003-12-17T01:57:50Z")
I’m a big fan of **The Hunt for Red October** as a movie that’s better than the book. IIRC, the novel’s “climactic” chase scene lasts something like twenty or thirty pages and then takes a _break_ from the action then resumes for another ten or so, whereas the movie does a great job of compressing the action. The movie also included the “I… was never here” line from James Earl Jones. Maybe the book did, too, but it’s clear which one I remember more clearly. ---
**Author:** ![lt180ml](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90db22/32.png) [@lt180ml](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lt180ml)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/53 "2003-12-17T02:13:53Z")
I was never a fan of the Patrick O’Brian books, although I also always felt this was somehow my fault. IMO, Master and Commander was better, but shouldn’t have mainstreamed things quite as much as it did…i.e., the Maturin was allowed to be considerably more quirky in the books. I suppose that’s the price an author has to pay to get his books made into movies. ---
**Author:** ![Treviathan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/838e76/32.png) [@Treviathan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Treviathan)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/54 "2003-12-17T02:18:04Z")
While I enjoyed the novel, the film adaptation of **High Fidelity** is near-perfect. The movie’s subtle visual details - like the indie rock posters adorning John Cusack’s walls - and the fact that you get to actually _hear_ the music they’re talking about makes the movie better, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Archergal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Archergal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Archergal)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/55 "2003-12-17T02:23:00Z")
I tell people NEVER to read the books the following movies were based on: **The Natural** and **The African Queen** I think the movies were superior in both cases. ---
**Author:** ![unixrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3ec8ea/32.png) [@unixrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unixrat)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/56 "2003-12-17T07:42:31Z")
For **SenorBeef** : It was my impression that Fight Club had outgrown it’s leader and it was unstoppable. Even with the leader committed and their original mission failed, the troops continue to push onward - similar to the movie when Ed Norton tries to tell them to stop. Your theory is very intriguing, however. I’ll have to re-read the ending and take another look. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Long\_Road](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b5a626/32.png) [@The\_Long\_Road](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Long_Road)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/57 "2003-12-17T12:02:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jurph \* > \*\*I’m a big fan of **The Hunt for Red October** as a movie that’s better than the book. IIRC, the novel’s “climactic” chase scene lasts something like twenty or thirty pages and then takes a _break_ from the action then resumes for another ten or so, whereas the movie does a great job of compressing the action. > > The movie also included the “I… was never here” line from James Earl Jones. Maybe the book did, too, but it’s clear which one I remember more clearly. \*\* The movie was better because it straightened things out. The book has so many subplots and dead ends that it can get painful to keep track of everything. One I remember is the crew of technicians sent out to meet the Red October but their helicopter crashes enroute and Jack Ryan is forced to go out. In the movie, it’s much simpler, he is ordered to go out. There is also some very muddled thread in the book about a Polish resistance movement or something similar giving the Red October orders. I can’t remember the details but I do remember thinking that it added nothing beyond additional pages to the book I guess early on I enjoyed Tom Clancy, mainly because of _Red Storm Rising_ but now I find his work far too concerned with minute details to be enjoyable. Not that the movie _Patriot Games_ was any great piece of work but I tend to think that it is better than the book for the same reasons. This doesn’t even begin to cover Tom Clancy trying to write romance into his novel ::shudder:: ---
**Author:** ![LorieSmurf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a587f6/32.png) [@LorieSmurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LorieSmurf)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/58 "2003-12-17T12:13:13Z")
The thing about Forrest Gump was that the book was NOTHING like the movie. The only thing the same was the character of Forrest Gump was kinda stupid, and the girl Jenny was his friend. That’s about it. Truly. But i liked both. The movie was sappier, and it had Tom Hanks and was touchy feely, so I preferred it. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/59 "2003-12-17T12:55:03Z")
The film _Ordinary People_ is much better than the book - some details are left out, and Conrad’s life takes a different turn, but it’s a very well-made movie, where the book was only reasonably well written. And the movie _Fried Green Tomatoes_ is better than the book, much livelier and more coherent (although the movie should’ve been honest and kept the lesbianism the author intended). I really disagree about _Lonesome Dove_ - Robert Duvall was the only part of the movie that worked for me, I though the remainder was far inferior. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224/60 "2003-12-17T15:03:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Archergal \* > \*\*I tell people NEVER to read the books the following movies were based on: > > **The Natural** > > and > > **The African Queen** > > I think the movies were superior in both cases. \*\* I have to heartily agree, after making the mistake of picking up The Natural one day in a book store and browsing through it. Yecch. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-book-always-more-enjoyable-than-the-movie/219224.md?page=4)