We asked The Atlantic’s writers and editors: What’s a film adaptation that’s better than the book?
The article explains why they consider the movies Jurassic Park, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Devil Wears Prada, The Social Network, and Clear and Present Danger each to be better than their source material.
V for Vendetta.
The original graphic novel is good, but very dated to the feel of the Thatcher years.
The film has aged a lot better and it smoothed out the pacing, making it much more enjoyable IMO.
I agree. I read the comics after the movie and while I enjoyed them, imo the movie was better.
The screenplay for the Princess Bride was written by the writer of the book iirc and just seems like a later draft of the same story but edited to be much better. And with the added bonus of having absolutely iconic performances.
I can’t tell if you’re making a very subtle joke with a straight face and your tongue in your cheek or if you really haven’t actually read the book. The irony is just fucking delicious. I prefer S. Morgenstern’s original text.
I have to disagree on this one. I loved the movie then immediately read the book, whereupon I discovered that as good as I’d found the movie, the book was even better. While I’ve ended up seeing the movie several times (when it happens to air), I’ve only reread the book once, but the book was, is, and will always be superior.
What Dreams May Come. I love the movie. Could barely make it through the book.
Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk, perhaps? Not that it’s a bad book by any means, and the idea is superb, but the execution isn’t quite so great - it was his first published novel. The film is exceptional, though.
I read that Palahniuk prefers the ending in the movie.
One should read his other works, it’s been a while so not super fresh in my memory but I remember being enthralled by them at the time. Not exactly kid friendly stuff though, do be warned.
“Guts” still hauts me to this day. 20 years after I read it
Broadly correct but I like the ending in the novel better.
Always thought Survivor would make a great film too but the whole flying a plane into a skyscraper part kinda put the studios off.
Jurassic Park the novel is superior to the film, and by a large margin. People who say this are either viewing the movie through a nostalgia filter or haven’t read the book.
One thing in particular that is obnoxious about the film is the messy themes. The book critiques capitalism just as much as irresponsible scientists, which is completely lost in the movie. Movie John Hammond is practically the good guy and suffers no consequences, which is makes it feel like borderline capitalist propaganda.
Having just rewatched Jurassic Park the other night for the first time since I was about 6 years old, my takeaway was mostly that the park needed a total overhaul of their EH&S department. Probably every single death was avoidable with less than a day’s work to prevent it, starting with the very first scene when they release a raptor into the enclosure. That guy’s death could have been avoided by simply
- Installing some rings into the posts on either side of the gate, and securing the shipping container to them to prevent unplanned movement of the container.
- Attaching some support posts to the rear of the container that would dig into the ground, rather than letting the container shift backwards.
- Have a pulley rigged up over the gate that could hook into the top of the door on the container, allowing the crew to lift open the container’s door from a safe distance.
And that’s literally the first scene. The entire main plot could have been avoided by not permitting a design with so many single points of failure, like only one individual being able to shut down critical safety systems without any additional oversight, and seemingly no fallback systems to account for either incompetent or malicious actors on the island.----
Probably every single death was avoidable with less than a day’s work to prevent it
This is where I disagree with the idea that Hammond’s culpability as a representative of capitalism was downplayed. He keeps saying “We spared no expense” but basically every problem is because they spared many expenses. Sure, they spent money on the little luxury details to make it an attractive park, but they overlooked or cheaped out on everything that wasn’t directly part of the value stream.
Agree with you. The book was much better–and the movie is one of the top 5 action movies of all time for me. Maybe it helps I read the book before I saw the movie, which not many had the chance to since the movie was and always has been an insta-classic.
No nostalgia filter here. I just recently re-read the book and rewatched the movie and…. the movie is better in my opinion.
Fair enough. It’s a fun movie with an excellent cast, but the capitalist edge leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Even Dennis Nedry in the book was an overworked, disgruntled employee who was partially a victim of capitalism himself. In the movie he mostly comes off as a greedy criminal. Although they did mention his “financial problems” in the movie.
It’s been years since I’ve read the book, maybe I need to reread it. Maybe I’m viewing the book through a nostalgia lense.
I prefer Hitchcock’s ‘Rear Window’ to the original short story it was based on, ‘It Had to Be Murder’. Not that the latter is bad, I just think some of the things the film is able to do like the slower pacing and neighbourhood ambience helps us experience the world from Jeff’s (Hal’s) perspective and that goes a long way to building suspense later in the film. You feel like you’re trapped in there alongside him in the film, whereas the book is recounted in past-tense so it’s a lesser secondhand feeling of suspense.
Idk I quite liked the book Jurassic Park, moreso than the movie I think but tbf it is a great movie too.
At 13 years old, I finished the book on the way to watch the movie. I had been reading it for a few weeks. Great book. Imo, they’re too close for me to judge which is better.
Yeah, I was surprised by this one, the book is great! The movie is great. They’re both great for what they are. The movie isn’t better.
While not a book, The Boys tv show is vastly better than the original comics it’s based on.
That’s because the original comic is pure Garth Ennis trash. It’s just edgy for edginess sake with nothing to actually say beyond “celebrity culture bad”.
The show still has an edginess problem, but it is much better and has a more or less coherent viewpoint.
In fact I think you’d be hard pressed to find any film/show or maybe any adaptation in any media that’s more Superior to its source material than the boys.
Better than the comic BOOK’s?
The books’s what?
Starship Troopers
But mostly because it isn’t really based on the book at all. Paul Verhoeven famously tried to read the book, got immediately bored and decided to make it his own thing.
Ehh I liked the book more.
Isn’t the book super pro-fascism?
Yes, Knowing Better has done a great analysis on such
17:52 for the book
I recall an authoritarian college professor in the book. When considered alongside Heinlein’s other work, I suspect the text of the professor’s lectures are meant to be examined critically.
Of course, Poe’s Law says that someone will take any satire at face value. Or that I took as satire something not meant to be?
That depends a lot on who you ask. All the weird propaganda in the movie is not there, but also the way that the main character explains how his society functions is perhaps incomplete.
We don’t see their society being racist (except against aliens) or sexist, we don’t see them suppress free speech or labor rights, we don’t see them worshipping some kind of Fuhrer either.
Personally, I think that war makes fascists of us all and that’s what the book tried to convey.
Book is emensely better. I read it every other year or so. Fucking great book. An okish movie.
If the movie had power armor it would have been no contest but as it is it’s just a monument to Verhoeven being too lazy to read a two hundred page book because there weren’t enough Jesus metaphors for his taste.
The book certainly has its moments, but the movie is much more entertaining. ‘The moon is a harsh mistress’ is a better book imo
Both were entertaining, but the movie was more of a popcorn action flick while the book tried to explore the realities of war and a warrior led culture.
The Heinlein estate holders didn’t like the movie so much, they have refused selling movie rights to any other book. So you won’t see The Moon is a Harsh Mistress because of Starship Troopers.
Movie was some deep cutting satire.
The Shawshank Redemption - a good book (Stephen King) made into a richer and more complete movie. In my opinion, so few of King’s stories were better on the screen than the original writing.
Imo also Edge of Tomorrow. All You Need Is Kill is good, but the alien is so goofy and the ending is kinda mid, and no real ending to the war. Edge of Tomorrow kinda fixed that. I also love how they handle the crew Cage first met and fight along instead of let them be fodder.
This is one of my favorite movies to catch people off guard with. Tom Cruise in a sci-fi blockbuster that actually turns out to have nuance and a brilliant time mechanic. Surface level, the box makes it look like schlock.
Yeah, the trailer and every promotional material really looks like a generic scifi stuff
So underrated/underappreciated this film I think! Pacey, funny, smart with an existential threat and Tom Cruise playing humble. Emily Blunt is perfect and Bill Paxton has a great time.
Yeah, it’s action packed and with great pacing, really show off the premise well.
There’s an anime based on the manga coming soon too!
I found the novel Jurassic Park to be superior to the movie though I enjoyed both. They were just different.
No Country For Old Men was such a masterpiece that it managed to be better than the book, which is a feat given it was written by Cormac McCarthy.
The whole bit with the hitchhiker being condensed into that woman at the pool was substantial edit and an improvement.
Blade Runner. I recently read through Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and really didn’t like it much but the movie is phenomenal.
Opposite for me. I despise Blade Runner for all the missed opportunities and themes from Androids that never made it to the screen. I recently rewatched the movie too make sure that my 20-YO self wasn’t wrong - he was right…
@memfree I am going to make angry a lot of people but here I go. The Shinning by Kubrick of course. I personally dont care for Stephen King Literary work I think in the whole context of human literature is absolute TRASH. But in the History of world Cinema Kubrick is up there in the mount Olympus of the Best of the best. The fact that Stephen king cannot understand a medium like Cinema made me choose this one even more. PLUS the fact that Stephen King Made a TV series because he didn’t like Kubrick version and is ABSOLUTE FORGETTABLE TRASH is the cherry on top. Im not sure if Kubrick did the same with Eyes Wide Shut… that is debatable.
Well, if you’re going to go there, then A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey. One can easily complain that Anthony Burgess wrote a better book filled with imagery and politics (and a glossary!) which Kubrick failed to capture, so that one might be arguable. On the other hand, while Arthur C. Clarke wrote a good book that Kubrick largely ignored, the result was one of the most innovative films in history. The film brought space to life in a way that printed words could not. Sure, Kubrick’s work can now be easily CGI-ed up, but he thought to do all of it and he did it the hard way before we had computers.
As far as Eyes Wide Shut goes… I kinda hated it because it felt like the default daydream of old men fantasizing about what they wish they’d done back when they couild still get it up. I read an article years ago about how for years Kubrick had script readers who would read hundreds of books and scripts to give him recommendations for what to make into his his next movie and they were all terrified of recommending something beneath The Master, and then he didn’t like the things he did see, and this went on and on, and I feel like he was stuck with material that a concensus would find acceptable/interesting rather than anything that was more avant garde.
2001 wasn’t based on the book. The book and movie were written in parallel.
I wasn’t gonna split that hair because it was based on some of Clarke’s shorter works that were optioned for the basis of the film. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel)
Sure, maybe it is a tad hair-splitty, but is it? Clarke was hired to write an original screenplay; it wasn’t meant to be based on another story. And the book wasn’t even meant to exist, initially. My understanding is that it does exist only because Clarke found script writing clunky and unnatural.
Although — even if the movie was based on a book — Kubrick would have done his own thing, and he wouldn’t have been wrong to take those liberties. Why faithfully remake a book? I can read a book. Give me something new.
Burgess is a TITAN of literature, Stephen King wished he was half as good as Burgess.
Having said that I don’t think Kubrick made a better film but god dam his film is so good.
