So, what are some of your favorite films that are better than the books they’re based on? And thanks again to Skillshare for sponsoring this video! Don't forget, the first 1,000 people to use the link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/impressionblend06221
Great to see the love for the recent "Nightmare Alley," which I thought was a fantastic update, and a wonderful and deserved surprise Best Picture nominee. If you haven't see the at-least-equally great original 1947 version, let me know and I'll send you the Fox Film Noir DVD.
@@alanbehrens4231 The '47 version is one of my favorite movies from the 1940's; watching the terrific newer film was a very satisfying experience- Del Toro and company (including co-writer and film expert Kim Morgan) took great care in doing the remake right!
The Godfather & Godfather 2 (The origin of numbered films.) is always cited as the number one film where the film is far superior to the book. Silence of the Lambs is a worthy novel, but the film is a masterpiece. Jaws, the book is basically high class pulp. The movie is is easily one of Spielberg's best.
Another movie I would add would be The Mist, mostly because of the ending. The ending in the book was a bit weird and abrupt, while in the movie it was hard-hitting and fit the theme and message that both mediums were trying to accomplish.
@@ImpressionBlend The movie's ending is way way darker than the movie, that's for sure. Stephen King himself has come out and said that he wished he could've written that ending originally. That's how impactful the movie ending was.
I am a huge John Irving fan, and The Cider House Rules is one of my favorite novels by him. But, he earned his well deserved Oscar for Adapted Screenplay by pulling the absolute essentials from the story and reconstructing them into a flowing narrative that Lasse Halstrom turned into an amazing film. This would be a good candidate for this list.
Agreed. Like Blade Runner, the film and the book are nearly two different things. Chuck Palahniuk's writing is daring and fresh and fearless, and I love his novels. Fight Club, the movie, however, was an absolutely stunning tour de force that took my breath away.
Great list, and I agree with all the ones I've watched. Another movie I would add to this list is Arrival. As much as I enjoyed the short story it's based on, the movie was just a lot more impactful. It managed to capture the narration, but also tell a compelling story. And of course, Amy Adams was robbed of an Oscar that year.
The Fellowship of the Ring also has an extremely overlooked and underrated chase scene: Arwen is simply awesome from her entrance to her swamping of the Nazgul at the Fords of Bruinen.
6:43 I'm a huge fan of 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (1978) and I have the movie on DVD as well as on Blu-ray, not to mention the soundtrack on LP and CD, as well as an original folded theatrical poster of the movie. :)
Just read the book, and, while the plot of the film folllows it quite closely, it doesn't capture how depressive the atmosphere of the book is. Its quite claustrophobic and rather saddening.
Great video! One from my own personal list: even though I wasn’t crazy about the movie ‘What Dreams May Come’, it is way better than the book, which has a painfully dated joke at one point, and en ending so bad that it made my eyes roll to the point of seeing a past life. Indeed, I do not have enough middle fingers to express how I feel about that book’s betrayal of an ending.
Great list Marianna. Another movie not on your list that is better than the book is Jaws. Where the book is a gritty, pulpy horror story with less likeable characters, the movie is a thrilling, suspenseful story that has the viewer on the edge of their set from start to finish. A classic movie and one of my favourites.
Great list. I just found your channel after I saw Garland's "Men" the other night and saw you had a video about it when I searched youtube. Already love your channel and am making my way through all of your previous vids. Speaking of Garland, I think "Annihilation" is another movie that's better than the book. Better character development, and the visuals inside the shimmer were much more interesting in the film than the book's description of Area X. Still a great book, though. I'll definitely be reading the other two books in the Southern Reach trilogy.
Clear and Present Danger. Actually, all Tom Clancy movies other than Hunt for Red October. But Clear and Present Danger is the one that pisses me off the most.
It's funny that you start with two King adaptations and I think a lot of people would also have The Shining and The Mist on their lists as well. But good point there's plenty of terrible attempts at film adaptations of his books. Just finished your Martyrs review as well! You're one of the few channels I pay attention to that actually bothered to review that and after seeing it I definitely needed to hear someone talk about it haha
I'm with you on Tom Bombadil. I didn't actually rip out those pages from the Fellowship, but I was sorely tempted to improve the book that way. You mentioned Roger Deakins for Shawshank, but, mystifyingly did not give him a nod for Blade Runner: 2049, and he told the story with light, expressing half, if not more, of what was not said, and, this being a Blade Runner movie, it could have been a silent film from the 1930s and have the same impact. I loved your analyses of the books vs. the films. Thank you for this.
@@ImpressionBlend His quality is certainly variable but I think he's under rated for his writing ability. I know its not an original thought but few authors in the last 50 years have captured small town life like he has. The horrors start before the supernatural manifests.
@@ImpressionBlend - I would reframe it (for me) as: King is a gifted storyteller, and “just” a good author. Because I’ve enjoyed many of his novels, and especially his novellas and short stories. He can have me laughing my 🍑 off and then a couple of pages later hiding under my covers. He has a great ear for New England dialogue as it’s actually spoken, which sounds like it should be a no-brainer but so many authors have stilted dialogue and it can tank even an interesting story for me. His characters are his strength, and I’m a character-driven guy, I suppose.
The man has a problem with endings. I’ve read IT twice (well, second time was an unabridged audiobook) I think it has his juiciest concept and I love the characters (at least as children) and some phenomenal set pieces… but my God… that ending kept going on and on… by the final page I didn’t give a damn about Bill, his wife or that f-ing bicycle! 😉
Read Shawshank in high school and saw the movie changed my life as i really started falling in love with movies. It has at times been my number one movie of all time.
Not quite the argument you’re making but one instance where I wouldn’t be able to choose between the novel or the film is A Clockwork Orange. Usually one just pip’s the other to the post but in this case I love both equally. Also, as much as I enjoyed the book as a teen, the film version of The Exorcist blew me away years later. Ditto Heart of Darkness and Coppola’s mind blowing Apocalypse Now.
Pyscho, the movie based on the book that was inspired by a serial killer/grave robber from Wisconsin. (Ed Gein) Grew up about 30 minutes from where it all happened.
Great list. Another example would be "Election" with Reece Witherspoon. The book is good, but it moves slow at times and is fairly straightforward. The movie added much of the black comedy elements, and Witherspoon's performance is golden.
When I think of movies that are better than the books, there always two that come to mind (and I love both books): The Age of Innocence and Rumble Fish. Rumble Fish is such an artistic view of the book that surpasses it. The age of innocence…the actors, the details, the black circle in the opera when she asks him if she thinks her lover will bring her yellow roses in the morning, in the end, when the light flashes and he sees her turning by the lighthouse…and to top it all, Joanne Woodward is the narrator. It is perfect. Even more so than the book. Probably my favorite Scorsese.
I found that the movie "The Mist" (another Stephen King story!) was a better told in movie form than the short story its based upon (the movie ending was liked even Stephen King himself!).
"The Fellowship of the Ring" is a fantastic movie. But it is not better than the book. "The Martian" is always my top pick for lists like this. The book reads like a technical manual. The movie made the story human.
Excellent list Marianna. And then there will be those who mention the Godfather, which I doubt you'll ever read. But the real question for the impressionable cognoscenti is this: Tarkovsky's Stalker or the Strugatskys' Roadside Picnic?
You're right, I've never read "The Godfather", and I don't think I ever will. As for "Stalker" vs "Roadside Picnic" - it's impossible to choose, I adore both of them. However, they've so different I almost feel like it's not something you can compare.
@@ImpressionBlend So that's a good advertisement to hunt down an English translation of the Strugatsky Brothers work. That and watching your review of it!
Agree on The Martian! It’s one of my favorite sci-fi books, but Matt Damon talking to GoPros and seeing what’s going on back on Earth is more thrilling than diary entries. Only bummer is the movie skipping the communication and dust storm obstacles near the end of the book-but I could see how that would make the movie too long
It’s aiming at a different goal 🥅 - for me. I love them each for what they are and since King and Kubrick are such *strong* personalities I’m not surprised that King didn’t appreciate what Kubrick did to his story. And I understand his point too, having written myself. But you’re absolutely right that Kubrick’s film is a tour de force and (imo) one of the best films ever made. Top 12 for me, along with Blade Runner and Shawshank from this list.
The book Carrie has thoughts and feelings of Carrie that couldn't be done the same way in movie. The first half of the movie is just a simplified story of the book. The prom night of the movie feel more horrifying by the masterful visual effects that couldn't be done in book. After the prom the book goes complete disaster, to a point feels redundant. The movie condense it, makes it more focused. Overall I prefer the book, because the most important point of the story is the first half which depicts the alienation from society.
The 2002 TV film made a good attempt at actually adapting the book faithfully.. Only the ending was changed because it was a pilot for a possible series. Its a shame the effects were shoddy because the performances were pretty good.
HIt the nail on the hit especially with the King adapations you listed. The Shawshank Redemption is my favorite film of all time. And I love the Blade Runner movies so much. And so many people I know really dont like 2049 but I thought it was a beautiful movie.
Scared the crap out of me as a kid! And now I just appreciate it for it’s perfect blend of quiet tension punctuated by moments of terror. And of course the dialogue is impeccable.
Yes, Tom Bombadil is the piece of the book 1 I think: he represents the extraction of the world perceptions that make it free of the ring power. Imagining the world differently allows him to be freer than anybody. Then, I do like the pages that talk about the perception of time: Gimli and Legolas on the river at the end of the book. And ofc, the perception of life from the elves. I did not find it in the movie even if I do like it. Maybe in the long version?
Nope, not even in the extended edition. I agree with you 💯. Really good movie(s), but Hollywood blockbusters nonetheless. Can’t hold a candle to the timeless, almost Biblical prose of J.R.R. Tolkien and the sense of awe and deep time it conveys. Book ftw in this case, sorry Marianna 😉
Interesting collection again. I have seen all the films but not read all the books so I can hardly add some comentary over. However I can say that in my view the films can be "sometimes" better than the book for either the "Entertaining" value such as comparing the James Bond series book against the movie franchise or initially sourced by short story like "Predestination" ,based on -All you Zombies- by Robert Heinlein (My favorite science fiction writer of all tine)! On the other side of the spectrum I saw a film with extraordinary visuals , 2001 from Stanley Kubrick which baffled me very much narrative wise until I read the book by Arthur C Clarke 🙂
I read The Martian this year and I did think the movie was better, but still found found both to be very triumphant and human. And both managed to make me cry.
I grew up on the Lord of the Rings books. I was a kid when the Houston 'Dungeons and Dragons Suicides' happened, and parents freaked out and confiscated anything fantasy from kids bedrooms and bookshelves. My aunt was a school teacher, and she snuck me the LOTR box set, under condition that I must not get caught with it. So the books mean a lot to me, even as an early education in the dangers or reactionism vs rational thinking. I only mention this because, despite it all, one of the greatest entertainment memories for me was watching the trailer for Fellowship with two buddies of mine. I don't think we took a breath that whole 3 minutes. And to hear, actually hear Gandalf demand "You Shall Not Pass", it gives me chills even thinking about it. So yea, big thumbs up to LOTR's inclusion. excellent list all around.
great list! Nightmare Alley was so fantastic but I really loved the book so it was hard for me to decide which I liked better. Gone Girl I like the book better because I didn't like that the movie made Ben Affleck's character more of the good guy than the book had. I started reading Psycho, but didn't get far because it was disturbing and scared me too much lol. Love the movie though
I disagree about Martian. The exciting aspect of the story IS in the detailed science. At least for us nerds. That’s what’s sacrificed in the movie version to gain revenue from normal people. I respect your review, but once again the nerd community is relegated to ablach.
I think they're both great. Each uses the strength of its own medium to stunning effect. The film is more thrilling, but the level od detail in the book is more immersive.
I somehow missed this video (thanks RU-vid). Anyway, great list, and it's good to see some book-related content! My first thought was Picnic at Hanging Rock. I feel like movies are fundamentally better suited to expressing abstractions than books/language in general, but also Peter Weir is much more interested in the atmosphere and the ethereal mystery of it than Joan Lindsay was, imo.
Funnily enough, I said the statement that sometimes film adaptations of a book can be better than the book itself to group of friends and they all gave me a look like I slapped their dog or something, they were so shocked 😂. But for real, the concept of an adaptation being better than the original material isn't anything to be shocked about. It's happened tons of times in different forms. Wish people would be more accepting of the possibility of a film adaptation being better than the book.
I think I'd suggest another Hitchcock film; his version of The 39 Steps. That's partly because Hitchcock always seems able to elevate the quality of a script, and partly because I found John Buchan's writing style rather dry and outdated. The story flows so much better in Hitchcock's hands.
I’ve been subscribed a few years now, and love your channel! I agree with your movie tastes a solid 85-90% of the time. Curious…am I missing something, as I can’t find the “movies that changed my life” part 2?
I wouldn’t say Martian is better, just extremely on par and worthy. But i never had problems with science, so I guess I can see how for some movie over book can be the case. 100000000000000000 times yes on Call me by your name *puts the movie on* (I need a feel good pick me up lol)
I personally didn't have a "problem" with science per se, but there were a few "info dump" moments in the novel, while the movie REALLY played up Watney's personality and sense of humor, so that's why it has a slight edge over the book for me. But obviously love both )) "Call Me By Your Name" though? Oh man, I was so disappointed by the novel.
The 1935 version of A Tale of Two Cities is better than Dickens's book. Dickens is great, but can be a bit schmatlzy. Also, the lead actor does a great job in the movie. Also: One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest. All-time great performance by Jack Nicholson. Louise Fletcher is right up there with him as Nurse Ratched. The book is a good but a bit dated in comparison.
I would add Trainspotting to this list. It's my "go to" example for movies better than books. And the book is quite good, don't get me wrong. I'd maybe consider Annihilation as well. I absolutely loved the book. It's great in so many ways. But I think the movie twists the story in ways that makes it really incredible.
Loved this video, and I'm glad Fellowship got some love! I adore the books, but Fellowship is hardest to get through whereas watching the movie is a piece of cake. Thanks for sharing!
6:43 Hello again, Marianna. Yes. 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (1978) is fantastic with an amazing cast (Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, Leonard Nimoy, Jeff Goldblum, Veronica Cartwright, and with a cameo appearance of Kevin McCarthy who was one of the main characters from the original 1956 movie. The score by Denny Zeitlin (a jazz pianist as well as a clinical professor of psychiatry) is also nice and creepy (the only score he ever composed for a movie).
Coppola took Mario Puzo’s inelegant trashy Mafia novel and turned it into, not one, but two cinematic masterworks. Kubrick’s The Shining isn’t King’s novel, but it’s more ambitious and delivers on the metaphysical depth that Kubrick (and screenwriter Diane Johnson) were attempting, making it one of the most fascinating and rewatchable horror movies in the canon (with a special shout-out to the music and sound editor). Like The Godfather, Jaws (Steven Spielberg) takes a trashy summer read and made a great movie. In fact, the movie only gets better with repeat viewings… it’s so engrossingly entertaining and unassuming in its style that you’re not aware how close to perfect the movie is. An unpretentious masterpiece.
I think Jackson's LOTR and Hobbit adaptations are done really well. Particularly TFOTR. I have read the novels and when you see the movie it was like every decision was done with the utmost respect. He had to be like a skilled surgeon cutting things back for a movie and I don't think it could have been done better. But I really think it would have been better as a high end tv series and the book could have been fleshed out better on screen. But back then in 2001 tv series were not the same as today having much less budgets.
Good point about the state of television! It’s possible to do things now (eg, The Foundation) that were impossible before the advent of cinema quality streaming miniseries. Second example: The Mandalorian. Perfect fit for a service like Disney+, and never would have worked as either a standalone film or as a traditional television series.
No joke, my first viewing of Shawshank Redemption was just as Lockdown started. I was still going week-by-week through my chronological Scratch-Off Movie Poster from Christmas 2018 at the time, long since finished with Pixar's Coco, and Shawshank Redemption just so happened to coincide with that particular week. It turned out to be the right movie at the right time, because the themes of finding hope and purpose in the bleakest of circumstances stuck with me and it became an instant favourite ever since.
One of the movies that are better than the source book is Neverending Story. The film covers the first half of the book but does it all so much better (maybe not the death of Artax but otherwise). Another I could name would be 2001: A Space Odyssey, which describes things that occur in great detail but not nearly as well as the film.
Nice list. :) One movie that has long seemed to me far, far better than its source material, is 1992's 'The Last of the Mohicans'. Michael Mann's film is incredible, while JF Cooper's book is really pretty bad. Mark Twain wrote a very funny critique/satire of Cooper, titled 'Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses', which is hard to forget when reading Cooper's works.
For most of the movies I can agree with your opinion. Most, not all. The Fellowship of the Ring, like the other two installments of the LOTR movies does not even come close to the books. Though I liked the movies and I bought the extended version DVDs, I have stopped watching them. The main reason is that, as with all fantasy books I read, I prefer my mind to come up with the images. I do not need nor want movies for that. And I also think that Peter Jackson just took too much liberty at changing things for his movies. You do not do that with the best fantasy trilogy that has ever been written by the best Fantasy author of all time.
M, this might be one of your better "non-review" vids, well done! A novel i might add to the list would be *Forrest Gump*. Book, IMO, was awful. Film, wonderful.
I have exactly the opposite opinion; the book is a wonderful albeit rather bitter sweet character study, while the film is dismal diabetes inducing rubbish, only elevated by the performances and the novelty of Hanks being added to vintage footage.
My favorite author is John Irving. Regardless, his movie versions can't possibly compete with the richness of his novels; however, there are 2 exceptions. First, the World According to Garp, which is the one novel many point to as the first of his to read, is not one of my favorites of his. The movie version blows the book out of the water. The second book is A Widow for One Year. The movie version is actually a third of the book called The Door in the Floor, which is amazing. The idea of doing a portion of the book allows the film to be rich and complete in its tragi-comedy. If you have not seen this, you really need to.
I would also add Goldfinger. The book is a fairly average novel by Fleming but the movie is often considered one of the best in the series. The novel never actually enters Fort Knox which is a highlight of the film. Goldfinger's plan in the novel is to simply steal the gold which Bond in the film points out is logistically impossible.
YES! “You know my naaaaaame…” 🎸- probably my favorite Bond film, certainly one of them. How could they follow that gem up with that awful snoozefest Quantum of Silence?? 🫤🤦🏻♂️
Jaws. The film streamlined the novel. Added more suspense and motivation, and also made the main characters likeable. The characters in the novel are so unlikable that you actually want the shark to kill them all..
Good afternoon. I agree with the majority of them less "The Lord of the Rings" and "Blade Runner", but this does not mean that both of them are magnificent movies. Anyway, I think movies and books should not been compared because both of them are two different arts with different ways (the word and the image). Thanks for your content. Best regards and good luck.
My #1 example of a movie that is better than the book is "Schindler's List". The movie is good, but it's more that the book is very dry and not very well written. There is also some visual imagery that just works better to convey both the horror and the beauty than the book was able to convey. I don't agree with you about "Carrie" (but I respect your opinion on it), but I definitely agree with you about "The Shawshank Redemption". All the others I do agree with you on, even as much as I love Philip K. Dick. And with The Lord of the Rings, I agree with you that the films make it more entertaining, but I prefer the books for the world building and examination of linguistics and history.
I'd add Roadside Picnic to the list. Like Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, the book is an older, pulpier version of the story while Stalker is a more philosophical, esoteric version. The Terror (season 1) is also better than the book and Arrival is better, mainly for being able to expand on the short story. Shout-outs, too, to Solaris and The Road for being valiant efforts, maybe equals, to great books.
Slight disagreement on Shawshank Redemption. It's not one of the best movies ever made BUT one of the most beloved. Like Casablanca... Beloved and timeless. Great job Marianna.
One film that didn't show up on this list: the original 1987 RoboCop. I'm not sure if the book is based on the screenplay or the other way around, but the plot, we iting, and most of the characters are onion skin thin. It took me about 2 1/2 hours to read the whole book, while it generally is d to take me 2-3 says on average.
One of my picks would be 'Jaws'. Yes I'm biased as its one of my favourite movies, but the Spielberg classic is 100 times better than Peter Benchley's Book.
🤔 Hmm, no _Silence of the Lambs,_ or John Carpenter's _The Thing?_ And since you brought up Stephen King, he liked the cinematic ending of _The Mist_ better than his own.
I was wondering if someone was going to mention Silence of the Lambs. The book was amazing, but the movie was better. I suspect part of what made the movie better is the actual difference in medium more than anything. The Green Mile is another one that is improved upon in a similar fashion.
I'm halfway through the video, but I think you didn't include animated films, such as Coraline. Also The Addams Family. A Series of Unfortunate Events.
Children of men though. The book does some great world building which certainly adds something but the changes made for the film and the awesome cinematography make it far superior imo.
I would add Misery to the list. The book is good, but the parts where we have to read the actual Misery Chastain novel Paul is writing for Annie slow the book a lot. Plus, for such a claustrophobic scenario and story, I think it should have been shorter. And then you have the movie, and Kathy Bates, who owns it all. And this might be cheating but I think the Dexter show was way better (and also way too different) than the books. I don't understand how I can love Blade Runner 2049 so much and be bored by the original Blade Runner. I have to rewatch it yet again to see what happens.
I disagree, but then I saw Blade Runner in the theater as a young teen and things at that age just make a bigger and more lasting impact on a person. I was also listening to The Clash and The Cure and reading LOTR around that time, so no surprise that all these years later I’d feel pretty much the same way.
I recently read the Dexter books and they are different from the show but mostly in the stories they tell. Though you can find certain plot points from the novels here and there in the series. I honestly wish they would have used the plot line where Dex trains Astor and Cody to be killers. That would have been good. I don't necessarily think on is better than the other as far as show and books go. I like both. There are some books that are 'Meh' and some seasons of the show that are 'Meh.
You’ve got to be kidding me re: The Bicentennial Man. Oof 🤢. Between that and “I, Robot” poor Isaac Asimov must be spinning in his grave like a shishkebab (except that he was cremated). I prefer Crichton’s novels of the first two also, and actually King’s novel as well. But those are in the realm of debate at least. Sorry bro, can’t agree with you at all! But hey, that’s why freedom is so great! 😊
