# Movies that were BETTER than the book they were based on **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 13, 2018, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515 "2018-01-13T05:36:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/61 "2018-01-14T15:45:20Z")
_ **101 Dalmatians** _. When I finally got around to reading the book in adulthood, I was surprised at how much it differed from the movie, and I have to admit I think Disney did a better job of telling the story. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/62 "2018-01-14T16:59:34Z")
> [@Turek](#): > > You should try reading the abridged version by William Goldman. It has a much better pacing. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/63 "2018-01-14T17:01:57Z")
> [@Harrington](#): > > Not sure if a book or just a story, but Shawshank Redemption (the movie) was better than anything Stephen King could produce, ever. Utter snobbish nonsense. SR is basic King; create real everyday characters and put them in difficult situations. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/64 "2018-01-14T17:14:22Z")
> [@don\_t\_ask](#): > > I thought both versions of _The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo_ were much better than the book. I found it such hard, unsatisfying reading that I didn’t bother with the rest of the trilogy. The movies were a pleasant surprise. REally? Did you read them in English? I enjoyed them, very much, and valued the movies primarily as a way to enjoy the books differently. Well, I did enjoy comparing and contrasting the two movies. > [@bmoak](#): > > IMHO, Field of Dreams is better than W.P Kinsella’s “Shoeless Joe”. In the book, there are two long subplots that are left out of the movie that kind of sidetrack the narrative. Heretic. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/65 "2018-01-14T17:57:06Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > **Goldfinger** , as a book, famously has a flaw in the planned heist — a flaw which, in the film, is pointed out by a gloating James Bond. Who is then counter-gloated at by a guy who understands why you think that, but, ah, this isn’t actually a heist. Maybe, but the movie introduces its own flaw. Goldfinger loves gold (“its brilliance, its divine heaviness”), not the things he can buy with it. He welcomes any enterprise that will increase his stock. Irradiating the gold in Fort Knox will hurt his ambitions. It won’t get him any more gold, and by making gold more valuable it will become harder for him to get more. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/66 "2018-01-14T18:11:58Z")
I think the movie “Gorky Park” was much better than Martin Smith’s book, which suffered from late, meandering plot contortions. About “The Shawshank Redemption” and “Stand By Me” - I prefer the original story versions, which were excellent. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/67 "2018-01-14T18:40:03Z")
> [@bmoak](#): > > IMHO, Field of Dreams is better than W.P Kinsella’s “Shoeless Joe”. In the book, there are two long subplots that are left out of the movie that kind of sidetrack the narrative. Yes, I had thought of posting the same thing, but it has been long enough since I read the book that I couldn’t remember the extra details, just that after reading it I thought the movie improved things by removing those subplots. I have the same vaguely remembered opinion about _A Simple Plan_. And _Where the Heart Is_. (Don’t judge me, I’ll watch anything with Natalie Portman.) That book was a total mess. A lot of these opinions on which of the two are better, though, I think are based on which order you originally consumed them. In the three above examples, I saw the movies years before I ever read the books–if the order had been flipped, so too might have been my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/68 "2018-01-14T18:46:48Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > I tried reading _The Princess Bride_. I couldn’t even get through the first chapter. I couldn’t either. But for me the movie has had a heavy-handed visit from the [Suck Fairy](https://www.tor.com/2010/09/28/the-suck-fairy/), too. I’m also in the boat of not being a fan of _The Hobbit_ and _Lord of the Rings_ books–never even attempted to read them (fantasy not being a strong genre reading intrest for me) until only a few years ago, after the LotR movies came out–I quit on Hobbit around halfway through, quit on Fellowship probably 1/20th of the way through. Tolkien IMHO created interesting worlds but wrote very clumsy dialogue and prose. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/69 "2018-01-14T19:43:21Z")
Well, I liked the _Hobbit_ and _LOTR_ books much better than the film versions. The films grew incredibly tedious as just so many more mindless action movies. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/70 "2018-01-14T22:03:09Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > _Starship Troopers._ You are dead to me. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/71 "2018-01-14T22:24:43Z")
_The Ten Commandments_ ---
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/72 "2018-01-14T23:16:33Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > Moby-Dick. I can’t even name one particular version, but the movies weed out the large chunk of the novel that is really a treatise on whaling. I’m a very high-level reader, but I have little patience for classics that use many pages not moving the plot forward. Oooh, disagree. I think the plot of _Moby Dick_ is pretty threadbare, though many of the characters are developed enough to make the story interesting. But the chapters about whales etc. are so great! To me, they seem like a mirror image of Ahab’s dark obsession: Melville is chasing down his own white whale, which is the giant, sprawling, all-over-the-place novel he’s writing. But unlike Ahab, Melville loves his whale, is fascinated by it – wants to look at it from every conceivable angle. Without Chapter 42, “[The Whiteness of the Whale](http://www.powermobydick.com/Moby042.html),” or Chapter 56, “[Of Whales in Paint; in Teeth; in Wood; in Sheet-Iron; in Stone; in Mountains; in Stars](http://www.powermobydick.com/Moby057.html),” we’d have a semi- interesting short novel, or the bones of an adequate movie or miniseries. And we wouldn’t have this, from [Chapter 65, “The Whale as a Dish”:](http://www.powermobydick.com/Moby065.html) > [@](#): > > But no doubt the first man that ever murdered an ox was regarded as a murderer; perhaps he was hung; and if he had been put on his trial by oxen, he certainly would have been; and he certainly deserved it if any murderer does. Go to the meat-market of a Saturday night and see the crowds of live bipeds staring up at the long rows of dead quadrupeds. Does not that sight take a tooth out of the cannibal’s jaw? Cannibals? who is not a cannibal? I tell you it will be more tolerable for the Fejee that salted down a lean missionary in his cellar against a coming famine; it will be more tolerable for that provident Fejee, I say, in the day of judgment, than for thee, civilized and enlightened gourmand, who nailest geese to the ground and feastest on their bloated livers in thy pate-de-foie-gras. So fun to read Melville being cuckoo for cetaceans. _Huck Finn_ has a similar dynamic: Twain’s best, funniest writing comes through when the plot goes on hiatus. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/73 "2018-01-15T02:33:53Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > The book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, by Phillip K. Dick, is excellent. I started reading it at the kitchen table during lunch and didn’t budge for hours because I was that engrossed. It was bizarre, thought-provoking, and kinda emotional. > > The movie based loosely on that book, Bladerunner, is a masterpiece. > > It’s one thing for a film to surpass a shitty book, but when the film surpasses an excellent book, that’s really something. Well put. One of the best novellas in American fiction, in my view, is Norman Maclean’s _A River Runs Through It._ I cannot say that Robert Redford’s movie version is _better_ than the novella; but it’s easily as good. > [@GreenWyvern](#): > > Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World - better than Patrick O’Brian’s novels. Gibberish, sheer gibberish. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/74 "2018-01-15T06:06:12Z")
_The Wizard of Oz_. I didn’t read the book until I was an adult. Dull, boring, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Grumbacher\_Red](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Grumbacher\_Red](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumbacher_Red)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/75 "2018-01-15T18:06:11Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > How is that different than the film? > > My friends and I came to the conclusion a few years back that Jenny is one of the worst human beings we are supposed to have sympathy for in film (Holly Golightly is in that conversation as well). Couldn’t agree more about Holly Golightly. My book club recently read the novella, and I really despise that chick! And Holly and Jenny really do have alot in common now that you mention it, as both are supposed to be running away from a traumatized past. In the movie Forrest Gump, you could sort of understand why Jenny was running once they showed you how horrific her home life was, and she DID pray to God to be turned into a bird, so she (in her mind) was flying as far and fast away as she could. None of that childhood abuse was mentioned in the book, so if you didn’t like her in the movie, you’ll want to run her over in the book. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/76 "2018-01-15T18:38:21Z")
1. Krieg der Knöpfe - War of the Buttons [War of the Buttons (1962) - IMDb](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054949/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4) The old b/w Version. The book: a simple tale of children continuing a feud between two French villages, haha, isn’t it funny how Kids are Kids (being cruel to each other for no reason: the narrator doesn’t mind at all). The movie: an example of how stupid a generational feud is, how brutal war is, and how violence Feeds this. 1. She-Devil [She-Devil (1989) - IMDb](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098309/?ref_=nv_sr_1) A man leaves his normal (ugly) housewife for a good-looking author. The woman gets revenge. The book Ends with the woman literally taking the place of the author - after ruining her, she buys her Villa cheap and gets plastic surgery to look like the author. That’s the opposite of empowering. The movie, Roseanne empowers herself and others with her employment agency, her husband gets some insight in prison, and the Family is re-united after People have learned from their Errors. Much more empowering. ---
**Author:** ![ArtBeforeScience](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/73ab20/32.png) [@ArtBeforeScience](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArtBeforeScience)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/77 "2018-01-15T19:34:29Z")
Nobody’s mentioned the movie _Apocalypse Now_, which was inspired by Joseph Conrad’s novel _Heart of Darkness_. I loved the movie until the end when it fell apart. Mainly because I saw it when I was 16 and was a HUGE fan of The Doors. The sound track “The End” was the perfect mood. The book, I re-read within the past year or so. I can’t decide which was “better” because, frankly, they were both flawed in various ways. But, worth the slog. Both were talking about historical horrors, real stuff: the Belgian Congo in one case, and Vietnam War in the other. Both did a great job of setting the mood. Both were vague about what actually happened and why. I just could never really understand the personality of the main character, in both instances named Kurtz. ---
**Author:** ![Sir\_T-Cups](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed655f/32.png) [@Sir\_T-Cups](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sir_T-Cups)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/78 "2018-01-15T21:09:32Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > Man, the movies were overly long and self-indulgent, but at least there was action. I can’t imagine how tedious the books must have been. Worse than you can imagine then. I have my own admittedly weird reasons for not getting into fantasy, but even having watched the movie (which helps) I still couldn’t get through it. My vote goes to Jurassic Park. A good read in and of itself, but the movie is just so, so much better. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/79 "2018-01-15T22:10:17Z")
I mentioned this elsewhere, but the movie “The Bridge On The River Kwai” is markedly superior to the book (which is OK, but lacks the excitement and vivid characters of the film, as well as having by comparison an unsatisfying ending). ---
**Author:** ![medstar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f07891/32.png) [@medstar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/medstar)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/80 "2018-01-15T22:22:40Z")
My contribution is Dr. Zhivago. I’ve never been able to get even halfway through the novel, but I thought the movie was a breathtaking epic. My heart broke when the girl breaks down at the end, sobbing that “she let go of my hand”, when she got lost in the crowd. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515.md?page=5)