"Felt the Bible wasn’t as funny and where was Alan Rickman?"

"It was part of a four-part novella release by Stephen King. The story was very short but very well written. I just feel like the movie really captured the spirit of the story and gave some depth to the characters. Plus, the acting was great."

"John Hammond from Jurassic Park was much better in the movie. In the book, he was kind of your standard greedy businessman. In the movie was a dreamy idealist with good intentions, which made it so much more heartbreaking when the park inevitably failed."

blazedblueberry comments: "I actually also noticed they switched the little boy and girl characters in the book and movie. In the book, the little girl is basically useless and whines and complains the whole time, while the boy saves the day almost exclusively. I thought it was cooler for the movie to split up the character traits more evenly between the two."

"I found Buttercup's character way worse in the book, even to a point where I was like okay dude cut ties you're better off without her, and in the movie I never feel that really."
 
reconjsh comments: "For fans of the movie, there’s a book called “As You Wish” by Cary Elwes about the behind-the-scenes stories of making the movie. It’s a great and funny read. There’s crazy stuff like Andre the Giant's 16-second farts and him passing out in a hotel lobby because he drinks alcohol by the barrel. Or Mandy Patinkin slapping Andre because he wasn’t saying his lines fast enough."

"They took a 36-page book and turned it into the greatest movie of all time."

"Jaws, because everyone in the novel is a terrible person, and a lot of the tension in the film is removed because the guys hunting the shark just get to go home every night in the book."
 
Podlubnyi comments: "Steven Spielberg said when he read the novel he found himself rooting for the shark because the human characters were so unlikeable. The movie got rid of unnecessary subplots like the Mayor's involvement with the Mafia and Ellen Brody having an affair with Hooper."
 
cooscoos3 replied: "The movie got rid of the unnecessary subplots like the Mayor's involvement with the Mafia and Ellen Brody having an affair with Hooper. Sounds like there was so much subplot, if they made it today it would be a trilogy."

" Even Steven King agreed."
 
User replied: " The ending really went the darkest freaking route possible and that took a lot of guts from the filmmakers."

"Forest Gump was way better that the book it was based on."
 
CandyAppleSauce replied: "Came here for this. Read the book in high school because I loved the movie (the soundtrack for the movie was my favorite album for most of my junior year), but that was just...it was something, anyway. That being said, Groom did get the right 'flavors' of the Deep South and especially Alabama into that book. Still, the movie was better."

"The book had a better ending, but it was written in such bizarre style it was a chore to read. And it's a short book too."
 
"This just in, did you guys know that the author Chuck Palahniuk also liked the movie better than the book?"

"It’s my favorite book of all time, but goddamn that movie is incredible. Wes Anderson just made it his own thing. The movie has so much more characters. Mr. Fox in the movie is so charming and intelligent, but also 10 times more arrogant than he was in the books. But he makes up for it in the end. Also, his backstory with the wolf is amazing. Mr. Fox is also so much goddamn better. In the book, she literally did nothing except cook the huge meal at the end. The scene in the movie where she fights Rat with a chain still gets me pumped up. And don’t even get me started on Ash and Kristofferson. Oh my god, what a goddamn improvement from the three small foxes from the books. Ash is so goddamn relatable, and Kristofferson is so lovable. Their parts in the movie were my favorites."

"I found the book boring but the film resonates even decades after I watched it."

"The book was supposed to be written as film-noir, but it ends up as a disjointed mess. The characters are there, but they have none of the charms of the movie. Eddie isn't a good man, who's ruining his life with booze after the loss of his brother; he's a drunk asshole, just because. Roger is dead. Etc...The plot is also different; the movie took the idea of humans and Toons interacting, and went in a completely different direction." res30stupid replied: "The book was called 'Who Censored Roger Rabbit' with the censoring being akin to murder. The sequel stories are sequels to the film, not the original book."

"In the books the dragons are little and caught to fish and do other chores."
 
catwizard727 replied: "To be fair, the only things that the books and movies share are some names and other things like that."

"Sets it up really well for the dad to save the boy at the last minute, and then he doesn't get there in time. Much more hard-hitting than the book, where they don't realize what happened till much later."

Shintoho replied: "See I always thought the book worked better because it presented things from the kid's perspective, who doesn't really understand what's going on, so it takes half the book before you realize that they're living at a death camp and his father is the commandant."

"While the book explained the characters better, the movie was so beautifully done and tells a story about compassion and life that the book doesn't."

The book was just a bunch of rules."

"Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Neil Gaiman, and the Stardust book was really good, but the movie was absolutely enchanting. I mean, seeing Robert DeNiro as Captain Shakespeare? Life-changing. Not to mention a much better ending."

"I have admiration for the people who made the story for the screen because the book is nothing similar. Amazing movie that came out of a very meh book."

"In the book, Dunbar stays with the natives and I felt it was out of character with what had happened before. In the book, he is even packing his things to leave, but it's then convinced to stay. I feel the movie was a better ending. Plus the sheer epic scope of the landscapes and the buffalo hunt were even more incredible than I pictured in the book. That movie is one of the greatest westerns ever made."

beets_bears_bubblegm replied: "Also, the soundtrack brings me to tears, without watching the movie. It was incredible."

"I keep telling people they should be considered two different narratives, book and movie, but man David Fincher blew it out of the park with his adaptation."

"The book was almost unreadable."
 
MrSlipperyFist replied: "The book is written without a particular protagonist in mind, and reads like it's being observed by a fly on the wall for the most part. I enjoyed the book as an observation piece - like a documentary, perhaps - while the movie was, well, a movie. They're both excellent, in my opinion. The same subject matter, the same events, same "feel", but is presented differently because of the mediums and the perspective, i.e. the movie is largely through the eyes of Schindler, Stern, Goeth, and occasionally other characters for brief times; whereas the book is almost through the eyes of someone who both is and isn't there if that makes sense."

" It was one of my favorite movie as a kid, I didn’t even know it was a book until I was in college. Now, the book is amazing, and the movie is extremely true to the book, more so than any other book-to-screen movie I’ve ever seen. BUT, the book is not intended for little children, and the cartoon movie adaption is completely fine for little kids. I love that I can introduce my toddler girls to some of my favorite literature so early on, and they absolutely love it."

"Boring slog of a book, epic period-piece action movie."
 
Hedwigbug comments: "Thank you! I read the book because I loved the movie and it was brutal. I told this to my AMERICAN LITERATURE PROFESSOR and she said, 'oh you poor thing. Nobody likes that book.'"

"They rearranged a lot, pulled things from multiple books for 1 movie, and made it so the main character actually has some growth. In the books, he remains the same unchanged sociopath who learns nothing."

"The movie did a fine job portraying how insane he was. There were passages in the book that almost made me put it down and stop reading it, just too much. Pure shock value."

"Actually seeing the garden was amazing, and the acting was incredible."
 
GenXSabbaticle comments: "It really matters which one. The 1993 film with Kate Mabry is a MASTERPIECE of resonant imagery and storytelling. I used it to teach archetypal analysis and quest stories to high-school seniors for years. Then I finally read the book and I was like, 'Where is all the awesome STUFF?? This is so shallow!'"

"The novel was good but the movie perfected the tone and quite honestly I thought Deckard was written better for the film."

res30stupid replied: "Yeah. The replicants in the books were just bastards (Rachel murders one of the few surviving animals to get back at Deckard) and the setting was just weird, with cults forming around animals. The film helps by humanizing the replicants and cutting the animal worship out."

"The movie explores the wondrous world of the father's outrageous stories, but the book lacks all that lavish imagery. Instead, it's just a bitter retelling from a spoiled child who thought his daddy didn't love him enough."

"Mainly because the visuals were amazing and it made the story so much better to be able to see everything."
 
starcraftre replied: "The Martian is one of my favorite sci-fi books, and one of my favorite sci-fi movies. For completely different reasons. The movie got everything just right and picked the perfect actor for Watney."

" The book was OK but it was definitely a children's book. The movie was absolutely beautiful. Alfonso Cuaron is an amazing director."

"I like the book, but the film is phenomenal."
 
FrysItchyButt comments: "This is immediately what came to mind for me. I don’t need chapters about Sonny’s massive dong and Bridesmaid’s wide set cervix."

"The book was based around three detectives with different motives and it was really good but it involving like thirty different conspiracies and ended in a massive prison escape that didn’t have to do that much with the rest of the plot. The movie took that, simplified the villainous conspiracy, kept the same awesome characters, and made it a very worthwhile experience. The one thing I wish they put in was Ed’s backstory during WWII, it made his character way more fascinating."

"There is some indigenous spirit walking in the middle of it that makes no sense with the rest of the storyline of a poor white trash girl having a baby in Wal-Mart. They cut all that out for the movie and the movie works much better in terms of plot."

"There's a lot more character put into all the people in Whoville and Jim Carrey killls it as Horton, the story is accomplished in an effective way that still retains the moral and overall feel of the original, and the movie is allowed to flesh out the world in a way that Dr. Seuss didn't. To those of you who say "But it's so short and would've been really hard to mess up improving on a book like that!" I submit any of the other adaptations of Dr. Seuss' work made in the last 25 years."

"The movie is nothing like the book. Which I think is a good thing. The movie was fun and had a ton of action. The book to me was dull and hard to finish. I felt like half the book was just covering his military training. This was one of the first times I thought the movie was far better than the book."

"The book was so goddamn bleak that it probably wouldn’t have been adapted otherwise."
 
TheOrangeNights replied: "Taika Watiti stated that he never even finished the book, and stopped reading halfway. Which is why the movie only shows a short part of the book and ends so differently."

"It was incredibly drawn out at times and they were right to cut a lot of it out of the movie. The author also feels the need to describe the hell out of everything and it gets tedious to read."

"The movie was a beautiful study of silences. In the book, you experienced every thought going through a 17-year-old boy's head. It was manic. In the movie, you had to rely on Chalamet's performance to understand what was going on in his head."

"And you may be asking yourself, 'But, isn't that movie not very good?' And you'd be correct! It's not. The comic that it's based on, however, is god-awful. The movie changes so much about the book that it's hardly the same story, but it removes the weirdo rape fantasies present throughout the comic that seem more like punchlines than character-building. It's a great concept squandered by Mark Millar's juvenile, edge lord writing."

"I'm not sure why since it's been well over a decade since I read the LOTR books, but I found reading through them to be a chore. As opposed to the movies, which in my opinion, are some of the greatest films ever made."

"I feel that it's somewhat cheating (in regards to this question) for films like Slumdog Millionaire, Forrest Gump, and Jojo Rabbit because they aren't even trying to be faithful adaptations. They take a lot of liberties and go in a lot of different directions than the source material. So whether it's even the same story as the book Q&A on which it's based is debatable. But I certainly enjoyed it more."

"Because Val Jean's inner debate lasts about 100 pages and the opening number is about a third of the book. It just goes on and on."

"The book had too many coordinates and directions. The movie felt more like a story."

smileyeiley agreed: "The visuals of the landscape add so much in the movie too."

"The ending of the book was so freaking stupid it almost made me not watch the movie. It was like the author wanted to just have a shocking ending instead of an ending that actually makes sense in the narrative."

"I think Arrival was better, and that's coming from someone who really liked the short story. The movie is just better at telling that story overall."
 
Brenkin comments: "I tend to agree because the film really brings out the story and makes it more digestible. That being said, Ted Chiang is easily one of the greatest science fiction authors of all time."

"It was worse because the movie's puzzle plot made little sense (you're telling me no one in the history of the billion-dollar puzzle thought to go backward, movie?). But it was better because it cut out a lot of the neckbeard stuff in the book. Like how the protagonist spends 3 pages explaining differences in Atari games to someone, and then everyone claps because of how awesome it was."
 
Fluff_E replied: "I often use this book as an example of something that would've made a killer 6 episode series. After listening to the audiobook, then watching the movie, I sorely missed a lot of the nerdy details and some of the character building that got me extremely immersed in the audiobook."