this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
73 points (89.2% liked)

movies

1174 readers
156 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. These rules will evolve as this community grows

No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SharkWeek@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] Kataelyna@lemmy.world 12 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] memfree@piefed.social 5 points 16 hours ago

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.

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 10 points 19 hours ago

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.

[–] addie@feddit.uk 21 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Gamoc@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

I read that Palahniuk prefers the ending in the movie.

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Denjin@lemmings.world 4 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Idk I quite liked the book Jurassic Park, moreso than the movie I think but tbf it is a great movie too.

[–] ChexMax@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

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.

[–] ObtuseDoorFrame@lemmy.zip 42 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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.

[–] hraegsvelmir@ani.social 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

  1. 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.
  2. Attaching some support posts to the rear of the container that would dig into the ground, rather than letting the container shift backwards.
  3. 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.----

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 7 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

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.

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Agree with you. The book was much better--and the movie is one of the top 5 action movies of all time in my book. 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (10 children)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 day ago (4 children)

While not a book, The Boys tv show is vastly better than the original comics it’s based on.

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago

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.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PostProcess@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] LikeableLime@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Blade Runner. I recently read through Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and really didn't like it much but the movie is phenomenal.

[–] Ixoid@aussie.zone 2 points 13 hours ago

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...

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] IanTwenty@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 2 points 16 hours ago

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!

[–] otacon239@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 1 points 15 hours ago

Yeah, the trailer and every promotional material really looks like a generic scifi stuff

[–] Guidy@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

I found the novel Jurassic Park to be superior to the movie though I enjoyed both. They were just different.

[–] kalpol@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Tinker Tailor is not better than the book. The Alec Guinness version comes close but the book really stands above.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] eaterofclowns@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DripDripDrip@social.vivaldi.net 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

@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.

[–] memfree@piefed.social 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

2001 wasn’t based on the book. The book and movie were written in parallel.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›