By - Rimsky_325
Forklift Safety In The Workplace
i thought the sex scene was a bit extra but otterwise that ones great
Yeah, somehow it wasn't as scary with all the heavy machinery operated by otters.
The book was a very good read, of course, but the film was a masterpiece.
Shame they didn’t have the vagina being too big for most dicks but not good ol’ Sonny Corleone plotline in the movie though amirite?
Came here to say this. No disrespect to the book, I really enjoyed it too.
Golly, thank you for saying this before me. Puzo’s book was good, but those films are art on Michelangelo’s level.
Idk I’d say they are about equal, while you are spared the pretty cringe parts about sonny’s hog in the film you also get a lot more back story about Luca in the book. I’d say they are both really good.
I remember reading Forrest gump when I was a teen, and when I watched the movie i felt i was missing things... It's been over 20 years, but my old fart brain still believes the book is better....and i might be completely wrong
It's also been a hot minute but the movie missed him going to space n shit with the monkey or whatever
The movie grounded the story in a big way.
Wild agreement on both counts. Decent sources, outstanding films.
I didn't know Forrest Gump was based off a book
TIL Forrest Gump was a book!
"Book" might be an overstatement. It was more like a pamphlet. It was only like 100 pages long.
As an author myself, I can say it was a great concept, but it was not executed very well. Not that Winston Groom needs to worry about my opinion. I'm sure he got filthy rich off of it and I'm still working my day job. Even though I didn't like the book, I'm ecstatic that he made it!
Stardust. Neil Gaiman made a sweet, perfectly pleasant fairy tale. Then cast members like Charlie Cox, Robert De Niro, and Michelle Pfeiffer completely breathed flame and laughter and sparks into it until it became a modern day Princess Bride.
I loved both but the movie did really stick in my mind
American Psycho, by a fair bit too.
I think the film kind of lessens quite how horrific Bateman is by cutting down a lot of his action and interactions but makes up for it with Bale's stellar performance. I like both equally, they're my favourite book and film respectively
Had no clue it was an adaptation.
The book is quite disturbing.
The Princess Bride- the book does not provide the storytelling opening in as an effective way as the movie with Peter Falk and Fred Savage. Overall brilliant work by Rob Reiner.
There is a whole 2 or 3 page description of a spider hiding in the lock to the place where The Machine is. How deadly, etc and I think she was imported to guard the place? Anyhoo, with all that build up, Fezik storms up and just slams the door to the ground, oblivious to the spider even being there and the whole description turns into a few pages of WTF was that?
I'm absolutely blanking on which book it was, but I read one years ago that opened up with a really nice description of some town in California and how great it is to live there- then about halfway down the page shifts to "but this book doesnt take place in California and none of the characters have ever been there so none of that is important."
Either the author really wanted to gush about Cali, or they're trying to up their word count. Or because they wanted a memorable opening that stuck in your head in some way.
It clearly worked because I still remember that opening and can't even remember what book it was
You're probably reading that horribly abridged version. You need to read the original S. Morganstern version. And really it should be read in Florinese.
The book provided the backstory on how Inigo's father and the Six-Fingered Man got into a transaction to make a sword.
Hard disagree. The book and film are both practically perfect.
I absolutely love Stephen King's books, but Carrie was better as a movie.
I actually really enjoyed the book. I loved how it had all this build up to make you wonder "wtf happened at the highschool dance?"
It's too bad that I already knew what happened from the iconic scene in the movie.
The difference in approach was intriguing. I was quite young when I first watched, then read Carrie. It may have been my first illustration of the differences between media.
Look, there's a couple of rules you've forgotten.
I read the book a few months ago and yeah, the movie's better but only because it took the good parts and adapted them perfectly, improved on some weaker parts and trimmed some fat here and there. It's a perfect example of how to adapt a movie
This is truth
Even ol’ Chuck loved the ending more than the book.
Like, the book ending's good and is realistically what would have happened but the film's ending is more fitting for the actual story. The book version places the focus on the actual actions of the narrator, not on the more important internal conclict
Either way, for a first full novel, Chuck knocked it out the park
Nooo was the book good though at least?
It's a short story
Novella. It's too long to be a short story, too short to be a novel.
The book/novella is fantastic; however, the movie is phenomenal
It was good, but in the movie Andy is a Byronic hero, closed and confident, while in the book he's more humanized. But since it's really Red's story anyway, the movie works better.
I think it's one of the more common answers, but The Mist captured the idea humans are the real danger really well, then the movie flipped the script and I'd argue made it way better
King thought so too
Yeah I enjoy that part of the story and the other one where Darabont kind of did what he did cause he was forced to change the ending of Shawshank
What was the original ending?
From what I remeber he wanted to end it the way the story ended. Spoilers for a very old movie. Essentially Red was on the bus hoping to see his friend, and I think Darabont wanted to stick to that and the studio told him Andy had to meet up with Red at the end after what was built between them all movie.
It wasn't drastic, but Darabont basically wanted to keep it as "I hope I meet my friend" and then roll credits and were just left wondering if Red and Andy ever did meet up.
Shawshank is probably my favorite movie ever
Agreed, it is easily one of the best
“Do androids dream of electric sheep” is a short story with an intriguing concept. Blade Runner is a masterpiece of cinema. Philip K Dick has many wonderfully inventive stories all seemingly just waiting for the right screenwriter and director. This just seems the best example.
Generally, films based on Philip K Dick's stories are better than the original stories, but he definitely did come up with novel concepts.
There's an anthology series on Amazon Prime called Do Android's Dream by Philip K Dick. Black Mirror-esque and some are brilliant.
Do you mean Electric Dreams?
It’s a wonderful series, one of my favourites.
That's a bingo!
Holes is such a good adaptation I can't decide if one is better than the other
Sounds like a porno
I remember the absolute joy of getting to watch it, once we’d spent lessons reading it at school.
The Holes movie was a catastrophe. The book is amazing.
I watched the movie 69 times.
The James Bond books are quite sexist and racist. The movies aren’t like that, the ones from the 60s/70s might I haven’t watched them.
Nah they hold it in pretty well. Still watchable without too much cringe
the ones from the 60s/70s definitely are. Though I dunno how they measure up against the books in comparison.
Brokeback Mountain. The original short story is quite good, but the film is a masterpiece.
Same answer! Up there with Princess Bride for favorite adventure movies
Just read it recently because I loved the movie so much
*No Country for Old Men* - Cormac McCarthy’s book is very good, but Javier Bardem and Tommy Lee Jones’ amazing performances made the movie adaptation even better.
Jaws. The book is filled with weird and bizarrely sexual subplots, to the point that the shark attacks often feel like the B plot. The strangest of which is where it's casually mentioned that a year before the shark attacks, there was a serial rapist reaping havoc on the women of Amity Island, and that the mayor ordered the newspapers to cover it up in order to keep tourists coming. And yes, I know that the point of that was to establish that the mayor had a "tourism at all costs" policy, but still, I feel there are other, less bizarre ways of establishing that.
I'm glad Spielberg decided to keep the focus on the shark.
Wait, Jaws was a rapist in addition to being a cold blooded killer!? That’s one bad fish.
I do kind of prefer that Hooper dies, though.
I hate sexual subplots in books/movies so much, especially when we could be reading/seeing something ten times more exciting in the main plot
Gonna offend some people but The Fault In Our Stars.
Actually just watched it for the 4th time last night. Perfectly cast
It's pretty close but The Green Mile.
Always makes me cry.
Children of Men
Whoever came up with that screenplay deserves all the credit, the book was so disappointing
The Hunt for Red October was a masterpiece film.
The book had a whole second submarine attacks scene that was unnecessary. I mean the story was over two thirds of the way through the book, only to finish with a jump scare?
Hmm... Howls Moving Castle.. kind of. I do think the book is better, but the movie is an almost completely different story! And sometimes it really shines where the book had a low moment (I'm looking at you, ending).
Both are absolutely worth your time tho.
Came here to say this. The film was brilliant satire, the book was fascist propaganda
Ready for a hot take?
Lord of the rings.
To be fair I haven't read them cover to cover. I read a lot of books, a lot of it Fantasy, but I just couldn't get into LOTR for whatever reason. The movies are some of my favorite movies of all time however.
Listen to them as audiobooks. Andy Serkis (Gollum) recently recorded them, and he does an amazing job. Really helps move along the "sing song" parts of the story. They come out better than the movies in my opinion.
Actual LOTR I'll give you - Jackson made a couple edits I didn't completely agree with, but by and large you get all of the epic fantasy without the long rambling digressions.
His Hobbit, on the other hand, is unforgiveable.
Blame the studio for the Hobbit catastrophe. Jackson seemed to have a two movie plan that the studio changed to three after production had already started on the first two.
It’s a miracle (or testament to Jackson’s skill) that those movies came out as well as they did under those circumstances. Imagine having a plan for two movies and then having to extend them into three with a cohesive story after you’ve already started working on your original idea AND you have a time limit to hit. As a writer, it sounds like a nightmare, and the behind the scenes shows how unhappy Jackson seemed to be about it.
EDIT: somewhere out there must be a Peter Jackson cut of the Hobbit that, instead of adding time like most director cuts, actually chops three hours out of the trilogy.
The vast majority of sci-fi and fantasy epics would be pretty awful to watch if every single bit of them was put to film. Isolating the core story and important fluff (trimming the fat) is what makes the best adaptations, like LotR, Dune, Blade Runner, etc.
There are a few scenes I hate that they cut in the most recent dune movie. The one that I think is really missing is the scene between Jessica and Thufir Hawat.
It shows the lore of the bene gesserit and the mentats extremely well. The traitor plot and trying to uncover who it is.... Really should have been there.
Yeah that scene and the dinner scene with the smuggler too, and I feel like the baron was under used.
I enjoy the books, but admit they are a touch on the padded side. There are a good few bits that could be excised from the books and not change the overall plot, like the encounter with the OG Mr. Bombastic, but why would you want to?
I've always said a completely faithful adaption of Lord of the Rings would be a week long, at minimum.
And it would be a musical, seriously, they sing every other page.
Tom Bombadil has entered the chat.
If you a deep dive on the lore you'll walk away with an impression that tom bombadil is basically a Satan analogy.
Which jibes as according to some wildly unconfirmed apocryphal lore I've heard, the Lord of the rings was Tolkien's acceptance of a challenge from CS Lewis to write a religious story.
Granted I've only ever heard it from christians so I'm not saying they might be pushing an agenda but...
> religious story
Definitely a lot of religious overtones in there. Whether intentional or not.
> Which jibes as according to some wildly unconfirmed apocryphal lore I've heard, the Lord of the rings was Tolkien's acceptance of a challenge from CS Lewis to write a religious story.
From what I understand from my research into Tolkien years ago was that he set out to work on a story counter to CS Lewis' heavily religious The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Thats why his story focuses on the deeds of little people and turns god like beings like Tom into a joke.
The more I think about it, the more I could easily make a Gandalf = Jesus.
A being of great power, comes to Earth in a mortal form, is completely good, resists temptation, cares to fault, sacrifices himself for the good of others. Comes back from the dead more powerful than before to prevent the rise of the greater evil.
Weirdly enough that interpretation makes Frodo a Judas figure.
How should we weigh the opinion of books vs movie of a guy that admittedly hasn't read the books? Commit to reading the books and circle back.
Leaving out the scouring of the shire is a travesty. The books build to the hobbits learning that they don't need anyone to solve their problems for them. Its the message of the book. You might be a hobbit but you can do great things and solve your own problems.
Jackson made the action movie version of the books. And that is fine, but he lost of soul of the books along the way.
Twin Towers and Return of the King, yes. Fellowship, no.
EDIT: Not because the Fellowship movie is bad at all, it's great. But the book is too and the movies of the following two books are much more entertaining than the books. Which are a slog IMO.
Yeah, I have a hard time with LOTR just with how much it veers off the plot to give background. I really do like the world though
might be unpopular, but i'm gonna say coraline.
Nah you're not totally wrong. The book is excellent but the movie is top shelf
I didn’t even know it had a book tbh
it's scarier than the movie!!
This, for sure. Hearing it all in first person from Watney, and the amazing amount of detail in the book, definitely makes it superior! Mark does so much more while on the planet, and having the whole thing told in diary format is just riveting. You keep hoping each day works out for him.
I'd kill for someone to do it in serial format on a streaming service. I think it would work.
Bridget Jones’s Diary
Forrest Gump. The book was too weird. The movie actually made it look more believable.
Edge of Tomorrow. Its based on / inspired by a short story, and the movie does everything a hundred times better.
I mean, it's just a sci-fi re-imagined Groundhog Day, right?
to make that claim you have to admit that Groundhog Day just rips off The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, which came out 30 years earlier.
I assumed there was something older, but I never bothered to check. I've learned that most movies from my childhood are remakes of something older.
Jurassic Park and Jaws. And the thing is, they're both actually really good books too, and worthy of reading.
Recently re-read Jurassic Park and I totally agree. Crichton came up with an amazing idea. Spielberg brought it to life.
The book is a lot better when you've seen the movie too it helps visualize the more sciencey stuff and makes it easier to understand
I read the book right after it came out and it blew my mind. I had never heard of fractals before and knew nothing of genetics. Now we're like "Here's a YouTube video of zooming into the Mandelbrot set for 15mins."
The Godfather. Movie is brilliant and Puzo isn't a good writer IMO
The Name of the Rose. Great movie, insanely good casting, Sean Connery at his best. Umberto Eco’s novel? Impenetrable…
Before you think I’m trolling, I’m specifically talking about the John Huston epic from 1966. That movie blew me away when I was a kid and the effects hold up for what they are. Special mention to Demille’s second 10 commandments, too.
The book is a slog and has a bunch of boring self-righteous characters that aren’t interesting enough to be in the movie so I can understand why they only did the first quarter of the book.
I recently discovered a great podcast on book to movie adaptations - [Failure to Adapt](https://failuretoadapt.libsyn.com/). Really funny and they've covered quite a few adaptations folks have mentioned in this thread. Jurassic Park, Silence of the Lambs, Stardust, The Martian, Starship Troopers, and The Bourne Identity among others.
Worth checking out if anyone enjoys that kind of commentary.
I’ve never agreed with something more in my life
Backdoor Sluts 9
The book was trash. I couldn't even get the pages apart.
The Nightmare Before Christmas.
The movie was awesome (love Tom Cruise)
Possible unpopular opinion but Jurassic Park.
Jurassic Park the book is incredible, and I would definitely consider it a great read. The movie was just significantly better for me.
Came here to say this. The pacing in the book is weak and repetitive. The movie flows a lot better.
The curious case of Benjamin Button
The Witches of Eastwick. I couldn't even finish the book because it was so awful.
The Shawshank Redemption
Girl on the train.
Honestly, I like the Harry Potter movies more than the books. Rowling’s writing style never really connected with me.
Requiem for a Dream
Practical Magic. The book doesn't really have a plot.
The Ten Commandments
The Devil wears Prada.
The Shawshank Redemption
Under the Tuscan Sun
Fried Green Tomatoes
Annihilation was an ok book but an amazing movie once the visuals all came together. Or maybe my imagination sucks.
Agree. The entire component with them going home every night after hunting the shark isn’t as good as the scenes we got with them all on the boat at night.
Starship troopers. The film is a brilliant satire, the book is fascist propaganda
How to train your dragon
Starship Troopers the book is a military facist wetdream. Glad that guy never got into politics.
It's not really a comparison you can make. The only similarities were some character names and the fact that there are bug aliens.
And both depict fascist societies, but one of them is a satire while the other is a weirdly homoerotic fantasy about military service.
How is the book homoerotic in any capacity?
God I hated the movie. Like I know its supposed to be satire but the book wasnt rediculous. I thought the movie was just dishonest.
I my opinion has swung for both pieces of media as I've gotten older.
I read the book as a kid and I understood it like a kid. "Power armor suits are cool and they have awesome battles"
I reread it as a teenager and understood it differently. "Neat sci-fi ideas, but the all male cast has some... Questionable moments."
I reread it as a young man(and active duty service member) and understood it very differently. "he nailed the homoeroticism though it reads like he had no idea about it, and boy is it chest-thumping, and the echoes to Sept 11th are curious. That government is fishy AF."
I reread it as an older man and veteran and let me say, holy shit. "He nailed the homoerotic nature of hard conservative ideology really well, and yikes that is a scary government he creates with full earnestness and zero irony. Neat sci-fi but it kinda reads like Lovecraft in space in its way, only with benevolent fascists"
My opinion on the film swung in a similar way but in the other direction. Didn't care for it when I was a teenager, have come to love the tits off it as an adult.
Most Philip K Dick adaptations.
Lord of the Rings. I know details were left out but I think those books are a little bloated for my taste.
Honestly I think that what made the books so bloated was the descriptions of the world and the different areas what takes several paragraphs or pages to describe only takes a couple seconds of film or less really, that's why they say a picture is worth a thousand words
Stand by Me
Don't tell Stephen King this
I think that Stanley Kubrick was an asshole, but them film is fantastic.
Lord of the rings.
Tom Bombadil begs to differ.
I’m reading the books for the first time and was So confused that I didn’t know a character
So does Glorfindel.
you get that bullshit out of here.
It’s my opinion. Don’t get all pissed about it.
I'll give Lord of the Rings films that, but the Hobbit movies were trash compared to the book though.
I was not referring to the hobbit.
never read it but i have heard this applies to the princess bride
Expecting a lot of hate for this one.....
Lord of the Rings. Yes the books laid the ground work for so many fantasy writers which is great. However the #1 word that comes to mind when thinking about the books is boring.
Sorry not sorry
World war Z I saw the trailer then bought the book before seeing the movie, the book isn't what you think.
The book is massively superior. The movie was a shit show.
Completely correct. I listened to the audio book on a long drive, when I got home I sat in the drive way and listened to the finish.
The audiobook is very well done.
I've said before WWZ would work really well as a TV show in the vein of those crime shows.
You know the ones where they have the victim/police narrating the event whilst a "dramatic recreation" plays out over the narration.
Lot of mileage out of that kind of format.
It should only have been a series. The book is built for it
I find that with a lot of books. with a TV show you can really build the world, whereas Movies usually have to cut a lot out due to "pacing"
Like, look at the latest Dune movie, it's a decent film, granted, but it heavily relies on the viewer at least having read the lore of the books to know what the fuck is going on sometimes.
Absolutely. The movie was a massive let down.
You know, WWZ is not a genre I would've read on my own and on its first description, without reading it, I dismissed it as low-brow, horror pulp.
After I read it though, I think that in 50 years, it will be considered a classic, much as Dracula is considered today. It's just an amazingly well written book that hits on so many levels.
I actually liked both the audiobook and the movie. If WWZ was instead titled Brad Pitt Vs Zombies, people probably wouldn't hate on it so much. They both do their own thing and that's fine.
may get a lot of backlash for this, but the hobbit
The atmosphere is completely different, grown up movie vs child book. The dwarves get personalities and be badass rather than comedic relief. I absolutely loved the first movie. Those after had a lot of really bad and unnecessary changes (the worms and the aragorn/arwen cross species rehash to name the things that bothered me most)
No matter what the general ppinion, there is still lots to love in those movies. And people tend to forget that the Hobbit is a children's book, coloured beards, talking wallets and all. If he had completely followed the book it wouldn't have been good movie either.
Blasphemy! Burn the witch!
The book had him doing weird shit that wasn't in the movie. The movie flowed better and told a better story.