Hey Pandas! Tell Us A Movie That Is Surprisingly Much Better Than The Book (Closed)

#1

It's a TV show, but the series of unfortunate events Netflix series. Don't get me wrong, I love the books, but the miniseries is so much funnier and very accurate to the books, and Neil Patrick Harris is perfectly casted.

Report

Final score:

12points

basil (as in razzle dazzle)

POST

PenitentEyeball 2 years ago

Hmm indeed

7points

reply

View more comments

#2

Practical Magic.

The movie is so much better than the book. They actually use magic in the movie and stuff.

Report

Final score:

8points

Black Pearl

POST

Clover 2 years ago

This comment has been deleted.

0points

reply

#3

Fight Club. Chuck P said so himself!

Report

Final score:

7points

Jode Mode

POST

X-style Gaming 2 years ago

Don't talk about Fight Club, you should know this

5points

reply

View more comments

#4

Hands down - Shawshank Redemption. It's based on a novella called "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" by Stephen King. Frank Darabont was the screenwriter and director of the movie. He had adapted one of Stephen King's "dollar baby" short stories (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_Baby), and paid King $5,000 for the rights to the Shawshank Redemption story. The original novella is only a part of the movie. The main character's dealings with the warden, my favorite part of the movie, isn't in the story at all, and many great plot points were added as well.. A genius adaptation resulting in an amazing movie!

Report

Final score:

6points

SarahBee

POST

Shyla Clay 2 years ago

I have to agree completely. Morgan Freeman was cast perfectly, especially as his character narrated.

3points

reply

View more comments

#5

First one off the top of my head, is JAWS. The movie was MUCH better. Peter Benchley's (the author) book was a bit convoluted, especially the mess with Hooper having an affair with Mrs. Brody, ugh.

Report

Final score:

5points

jolie laide

POST

K- THULU 2 years ago

They definitely made the movie much more kid friendly.....read it well before the film and had quite a lot more horror aspects to it...

1point

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

#6

The Princess Bride. The book is very good, but the movie is a classic.

Report

Final score:

5points

Tuesday Next

POST

Blarrg 2 years ago

Not sure I fully a agree. I love the book, and was delighted by the movie, but I don't think it's better.

0points

reply

View more comments

#7

Like Water for Chocolate. Not actually movie better than the book, but the BEST book to film adaption ever, in part, I believe, because the author also wrote the screenplay AND her husband directed it.

Report

Final score:

4points

Nancy Whiting

POST

#8

Blade runner. Granted, I saw the movie first, but the book while ok, is bit boring at times. The movie however.... shioot I cried when Rutger Hauer had his moment near the end. Keep in mind I'm not often moved by movies to the point of tears.

Report

Final score:

4points

Remi (He/Him)

POST

K- THULU 2 years ago

Absolutely loved the film...then read the book and was just..WTF?

3points

reply

#9

The Mist…by a mile!

Report

Final score:

4points

LennytheCat

POST

Shyla Clay 2 years ago

I love the ending in the movie much better. It also fits in well with the stuff King wrote at the time (he wrote The Mist).

1point

reply

#10

Forrest Gump. I could not read that book for anything.

Report

Final score:

4points

Shyla Clay

POST

#11

Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. I love the language and use of words Tolkien uses in his books, but dang, 100 pages and Frodo still hasn't left the Shire, and is still auctioning the furnitures. And the dwarfs had way more personality in the movies.

I also don't understand how people complain that LotR was too short, but then complain that Hobbit was too long.

Report

Final score:

4points

Nguyen Jung

POST

RazmOnnen 2 years ago

It could be maybe the fact that lotr is 3 entire books of (very) detailed story that couldn't all possibly make it to the screen, while the hobbit is a tiny 300 pages simple kid story that had to be stretched and convoluted to the point of nonsense ? That might be a factor idk

6points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

#12

Empire of the Sun. The book is looooong and boring and the movie is breathtaking in performance and photography.

Report

Final score:

4points

Laura Myszkowski

POST

ShyWahine 2 years ago

Yes! I enjoyed the movie far more than reading the book

1point

reply

#13

"The Green Mile" with Tom Hanks, based on Stephen King's novel. I loved the book and was really enchanted by the movie. First time I wasn't deceived by an adaptation!

Report

Final score:

3points

Joanne L

POST

#14

How to train your dragon. It may not be like the books but that's ok think of it like a glow up in way(for real though Toothless wasn't a night fury in the books)

Report

Final score:

3points

CamtheWolfGamer

POST

Brenna Dewhirst 2 years ago

I like to think of them as two different things.

3points

reply

View more comments

#15

Jurassic Park. A lot more people die and a lot of people are far more dislikeable. For example Malcom dies, John Hammond dies, and they also go into excruciatingly disgusting detail about nedrey's death. Also in the book, John is a grey money horder.,Ellie is a idiot, and Lex is a winey brat. All in all, the movies have far more likeable characters.

Report

Final score:

3points

Thea Martin

POST

Thea Martin (Submission author) 2 years ago

Greedy not grey. I messed up there

1point

reply

View more comments

#16

Like others, this isn't strictly to the question: The Running Man. The book was by some made-up guy that turned out to be Stephen King and the movie is starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, they both sound good, right?

The book and the movie are so vastly different (which is usually a bad thing) that you may not have connected the two together if they didn't have the same name, but they are both *so* good each on their own.

Report

Final score:

3points

Lawrence Nelson

POST

#17

Silence of the Lambs... by a lot...it's upsetting how bad the book is compared to the movie...

Report

Final score:

2points

Tonett Peraza- Baker

POST

ShyWahine 2 years ago

I agree! This is one of the rare instances where the movie was superior to the book! (saw the movie first, then read the book)

0points

reply

#18

Doctor Sleep
The book was good too but I like the movie better, much better.

Report

Final score:

1point

Maddy Panda

POST

#19

lovers of the book will hate me for saying this but aussie movie " Bliss"

Report

Final score:

1point

K- THULU

POST

#20

Hands down - Shawshank Redemption. It's based on a novella called "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" by Stephen King. Frank Darabont was the screenwriter and director of the movie. He had adapted one of Stephen King's "dollar baby" short stories (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_Baby), and paid King $5,000 for the rights to the Shawshank Redemption story. The original novella is only a part of the movie. The main character's dealings with the warden, my favorite part of the movie, isn't in the story at all, and many great plot points were added as well.. A genius adaptation resulting in an amazing movie!

Report

Final score:

1point

SarahBee

POST

Saint Lynnie 2 years ago

Why is this on here twice?

4points

reply

#21

The Godfather.

The movie is far superior to the book, which is practically subpar.

Report

Final score:

1point

jahid Munna

POST

Scott Seeger 2 years ago

Theres a subplat in the book involving a woman with an enlarged vagina that a doctor wants to surgically cure. The woman is that one Sonny is doing at the wedding. You read that right and i kid you not. Its in the book.

2points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

#22

Charlie and the chocolate factory, or maybe it was W***y Wonka. At this point I have forgotten.

Report

Final score:

1point

Alemex

POST

Metallicd3ath 2 years ago

Charlie and the chocolate factory was the original, W***y Wonka was the remake movie with Johnny Depp

2points

reply

View more comments

#23

Not a movie, but the Netflix show Hemlock Grove. They brought a weird, wordy book to life with an amazing cast.

Report

Final score:

1point

Chelsea Aaron

POST

#24

Also not a movie, but the TV series Sherlock. The books are nice but they are all from Watson's perspective so it is great to have something from Sherlock's point of view, it also developes more the characters. Besides it has an amazing cast and the adaptation to modern life is well done.

Report

Final score:

1point

Lina

POST

#25

bridges of madison

Report

Final score:

1point

Bill Kotsias

POST

#26

Ella Enchanted!! I love the modern spin on an old story!!

Report

Final score:

1point

Clair Burkhalter

POST

Autumn 2 years ago

Honestly, the book and the movie where very different. I liked them both in their own rights.

0points

reply

#27

Stardust by Neil Gaiman. I love his books, but this movie was just better.

A Walk to Remember by Nicholas Sparks. It's the only one of his books I've read, but the movie was better.

Report

Final score:

1point

Valerie Temple

POST

#28

Not a movie but a TV show: Altered Carbon. The show is a masterpiece and Joel Kinnaman's performance as Takeshi is brilliant (Don't get me started on Anthony Mackie though). The book I found sort of pretentious, like it was trying to be edgy but failed horribly. I hated how one-dimensional the characters were compared to the show.

Report

Final score:

1point

Ilona Salminen

POST

Darian Starfrog 2 years ago

100% agreed.. though it def lost it season 3? Whenever the protag was changed.. it got soooo bad. Couldn't finish.. like Marvel phase 4 jeez

0points

reply

#29

Catch Me If You Can. The book is really good but Tom Hanks and Leonardo DiCaprio make the movie even better.

Report

Final score:

1point

Zelda Fitzgerald

POST

#30

Jurassic Park, I haven’t read the books but I’ve heard that some characters I like die so in my opinion, the movie version of Jurassic Park is better than the books.

Report

Final score:

0points

Charlie Spring Fan (He/Him)

POST

BWC 2 years ago

I didn't read this comment so I'm expecting that the movie is much better, in my opinion.

7points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

#31

I found Hugo a lot better than the book (the book is big and more boring in my opinion).

Also LOTR, the books are WAY to long.

Report

Final score:

0points

Penny Tent (she/her)

POST

Dia Carmignani 2 years ago

The hobbit too. Peter jackson deserves alot of love for creating so much love for a story that is meh in actuality, but its his 3 movies that made me a fan.

2points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

#32

Not a movie but a tv series. “The Old Man” is a dark, exhausting tv series with well known actors but well done. I started the book yesterday and am completely underwhelmed so far.

Report

Final score:

0points

Mrs.King0315

POST

#33

I wouldn't say it was "much better" than the book but the film adaptation of "The Black Phone" was really faithful to the story, with a little enhancement. In my experience, that's a rare thing.

Report

Final score:

0points

Kim Shannon

POST

#34

Oh, I have another one. Chocolate. I enjoyed the book well enough, but the movie just really hit all my buttons.

Report

Final score:

0points

Shyla Clay

POST

#35

Bridge to Terabithia. Book was better, but the movie almost had it too.

Report

Final score:

0points

Karnevil4

POST

Kassie 2 years ago (edited)

The book was waaay better than the movie. The movie didn't move me nearly as much as the book and I don't think the movie portrayed terabithia well

1point

reply

View more comments

#36

Dance with wolves
The Film was much better than the book.

Report

Final score:

0points

Patricia Fonda

POST

#37

Harry Potter. The movies are so interesting. Some reason I just couldn't read the books.

Report

Final score:

0points

Just a panda

POST

עילי לשם 2 years ago

Well, in my opinion you are horribly wrong. The books are so much better. (Except for the fifth. The movie was great but the book - not so much)

2points

reply

ljbeanfield 2 years ago

Well, it's subjective..

1point

reply

Load More Replies...

Darian Starfrog 2 years ago

I couldn't make it through all the movies, stopped a third through prisoner of Azkaban.. but I could NOT stop reading the whole series as soon as I got the books..

1point

reply

lady maltz (Submission author) 2 years ago (edited)

Idk why I didn't, I have the first two.

1point

reply

Autumn 2 years ago

Ooh….. I’m definitely going to have to disagree with you there. The movies are a wonderful adaptation with a perfect cast. I especially liked the movies towards the beginning. But I’d have to say that the books are better. The movies leave out some scenes and there’s less world building. I’d also say that the atmosphere in the later books vs the movies is kinda weird to me. Same with how some of the actors looked. They fit them better when they were younger even though I still think they did a great job. The movies are absolutely incredible but I’d say that the books are better in some aspects.

0points

reply

LMDontKnow (Submission author) 2 years ago

Skyfire, I must agree. I cannot. Idk why I don't read them. Maybe just that feeling that you don't wanna do something but you still want to do it at the same time!!!

-1point

reply

Skyfire647 (she/zey) 2 years ago

I 100% agree. Couldn't stick with the books, tried numerous times to read them. Just couldn't .

-1point

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

#38

THE NOTEBOOK:. I liked the movie much better than the book. The movie has lots more details, making the book seem like an outline of the movie.

Report

Final score:

0points

Clover

POST

#39

"Bridget Jones's Diary". Which, to be honest, wasn't that hard, because the book is awful.

Report

Final score:

0points

Alyssa Lupo-Zulueta

POST

#40

I loved the film children of men, so i tried with the book and hated it. I made myself read it, but the writing was boring and aloof somehow in comparison to the film...

Report

Final score:

0points

A. Celtigar

POST

#41

Not The Fault in Our Stars!! That was probably my least favorite remake.

Report

Final score:

0points

Kassie

POST

#42

Practical Magic. It's my favorite movie and I was so excited to know that it was based on a book. Unfortunately, I found it to be disappointing. In the movie there's a ton of chemistry and familial love between the cast. On the pages, there's a disconnect and harshness that drives you away from the story. I recommend the movie everyone, and the book to no one.

Report

Final score:

0points

Carrie Robertson

POST

#43

Cloud Atlas. The book was rather painful. And the music was marvelous.

Report

Final score:

0points

Cassidy Leitner

POST

#44

Cloud Atlas. The book was rather painful. And the music was marvelous.

Report

Final score:

0points

Cassidy Leitner

POST

#45

Simon Birch. The movie us amazing and moving and tracks enough with the book at first you get into the book (I read the book years after seeing the movie.)

Then the book goes on and it just gets stranger. By the end I was pissed and wished I never read it (A Prayer for Owen Meaney.)

Report

Final score:

0points

Nonbinary Reptile

POST

#46

Alright, there was a post with the opposite question, ‘What movie is awful compared to the book’ or something like that but that post is gone so I will post it here. *Spoilers ahead btw* Wildwitch, based on the danish book ‘Vildheks’ by Lene Kaaberbøl is an AWFUL movie, and I absolutely love the books. They squashed *6* books into 1 movie, and skipped TONS of CRUCIAL details. Like, for instance, in the book the main character has *black* hair, and after the cat scratches her it’s greyish-brownish and becomes black again later. However in the movie it’s ORANGE! THE. WHOLE. WAY. THROUGH. THE. MOVIE. If you watch the movie, and you haven’t read the books, you might like it. Then you will read the books and you will DESPISE the movie. I recommend reading the book, not watching the movie, and continue living a happy life.

Report

Final score:

-4points