Six Films Better Than the Books They’re Based On. Including Jurassic Park, The Devil Wears Prada, and The Social Network. What are some of your favorite films that hold their own with the books they’re based on?
Advertise here with Carbon Ads
This site is made possible by member support. 💞
Big thanks to Arcustech for hosting the site and offering amazing tech support.
When you buy through links on kottke.org, I may earn an affiliate commission. Thanks for supporting the site!
kottke.org. home of fine hypertext products since 1998.
Beloved by 86.47% of the web.
Comments 50
thread
latest
popular
I'm really surprised The Godfather didn't make the list.
"Better" is weird. I think of things like The Shining and The English Patient, where I loved the books, and the movie brought me something unique and different.
Yeah, I prefer the framing of "holding their own" with the books.
That was my exact experience with The English Patient.
"No Country for Old Men" fits this sentiment so well for me.
The English Patient. The movie - stunning visuals stellar cast. I went out and bought the book. Stunning prose. The best of both worlds.
P.D. James’ “The Children of Men” is an exceptional novel. Alfonso Cuarón‘s film “Children of Men” is a masterpiece.
I like the 2001: A Space Odyssey book, but the film is on another level of greatness.
Adaptation. (based on The Orchid Thief) is another one for me.
Both of these examples beg the question about what an adaptation actually is though. The book and film for 2001 were created simultaneously, and Adaptation. takes creative liberty to a whole new meta-level.
The ones that always come to mind for me are The Godfather and Jaws.
V for Vendetta is a movie I just rewatched for the first time since it was in theaters; it is even better now than back then, and it's definitely a stronger piece of work than the graphic novel...
Oh I wish I'd thought of that. It's the opppsite of Watchmen: I actually like the film but the comic book is extraordinary.
Not a movie, but the My Brilliant Friend TV series does justice to Elena Ferrante's fantastic book series. Also, the recent adaptation of Shōgun.
In that same vein...
As good as The Talented Mr. Ripley movie was, Steven Zaillian's Ripley TV series took the source material to a whole other level. Not just the story, but the B&W cinematography from Robert Elswit makes it amazing (some questionable plot machinations near the end notwithstanding).
There are many Hitchcock films that could make this list. He was very skilled at elevating pulpy novels to great art.
I think the film October Sky is much better than the memoir The Rocket Boys that it was based on. I read the book after seeing the film.
Blade Runner (both of them). 2001 doesn't really count because it was based on two short stories and then Clarke wrote the book alongside the film I think.
But it's mostly a category error to compare films with books: they're such different forms.
Re: "a category error..." I disagree. It's possible to say that, e.g. Jaws the book was less successful as a book than Jaws the movie was as a movie. (I'm not talking about popular or financial success, but success as in: does this thing work as this particular type of media?) In the same way, you can say that LeBron James is a better basketball player than, say, Soundgarden was a band. (No shade to Soundgarden but James is all-time S-tier.)
Blade Runner: Absolutely.
Blade Runner 2049: Probably not, because the movie was such a misfire. Blade Runner had all the interesting ideas, and paradigm-shifting visuals. 2049 had no new ideas, and more-of-the-same visuals (although very well done). It was a chase movie. Such a disappointment.
I hated Blade Runner the first time I saw it, but it immediately started growing on me, and now, decades later, it is maybe my favorite movie of all time. I wanted to like 2049, I really tried to like it, and even saw it twice. But over time, it has just diminished for me.
Is a given painting better than a givenbook? A given photograph better than the painting? A theorem better than a piece of music? The smell of honeysuckle in the dusk better than the sound of a choir in a 12th-century cathedral?
All these things are simply not comparable.
Oh you missed the point of Blade Runner 2049 I think. Here is not the place for an argument about that though.
I thought the Department Q Netflix series was better than the book. I was not super compelled to read the next book in the series but I can't wait for the next one on TV. Scott Frank, the showrunner, is a genius, full stop. If you are a film and tv buff, the profile of him in The New Yorker is really good.
Anthony Minghella’s 1999 Talented Mr. Ripley should not make this list. PSH's absolutely stellar performance notwithstanding, the (very pretty) film is miscast and full of whiny gay panic sentiment. Netflix's 2023 Ripley miniseries with Andrew Scott is the real winner that matches the book's black humor with a fantastic noir palette and the genuine sense of an inventively resourceful sociopath.
Thanks for calling out the gay panic — it ruined it, and I would have otherwise really enjoyed it. If memory serves, the final moments of it are the absolute worst. It felt like Minghella (whose work a truly admired and enjoyed, R.I.P.), wanted to make sure the viewer absolutely knew there was no ambiguity of judgement. Yuck.
should be mentioned the 1999 film is a really close remake of the 1960 "Purple Noon" starring Alain Delon as Ripley
"The Shawshank Redemption" is an excellent movie, based on the also excellent novella "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption".
I heard (perhaps apocryphally?) that after making "Lolita" Stanley Kubrick said, somewhat ruefully, "I'm never going to try to make a movie based on a good book again."
Likewise, Stand By Me / The Body, from the same King collection is also a winner.
Cloud Atlas, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Fast Times at Ridgemont High all come to mind.
“The French Lieutenant’s Woman.”
1969 novel by John Fowles: Innovative, experimental, not easily adapted to screen (although today, anything’s possible)
1981 movie starring Meryl Streep (who won the BAFTA for her performance) and Jeremy Irons, from a screenplay by Harold Pinter: Brilliant reworking by Pinter into something far afield from the novel while never losing its tether to it.
I mention them because they were both discussed a lot at the end of the 20th Century, but I’ve not heard them named in decades.
I really enjoyed the first season of Killing Eve, but the novella fell flat for me.
Failure to Adapt is a podcast that covers this exact topic. Hilarious generally, the 50 Shades episodes, specifically. It covers a wide range of source material and adaptations, from Arthurian legends to Top Gun.
Arrival - the movie somehow outshines the wonderful short story it was based on.
Station Eleven - I love the book. The series makes some important adjustments to the narrative and delivers an even better experience.
Came here to say this about Arrival. The story is amazing. The movie is perfect.
Station Eleven the book had an incredible premise but many of the characters were stereotypes or underdeveloped. The HBO adaption was among the most brilliant TV shows of all time.
Jurassic Park the MOVIE is better!? No way! I read the book before the movie existed, and sure it required a healthy suspension of many things, but I still remember being curled up on the sofa in my college apartment, dark outside (did I hear a noise? was it just..maybe... a velociraptor?! heart POUNDING as I read) and wanting beyond all wanting for the science in the book to actually work, to actually be true. It was all just real enough.
But for some of these I think it's the usual: if you read the book before the movie, you're disappointed in the movie. If it's the reverse, the book isn't as good. The magic is when both systems of delivery manage to hold their own.
I also read the book before the movie. It was heart pounding. The movie was then and still is a visual feast. I think neither ruins the other. That’s how it should be.
Controversial opinion: LOTR. I enjoyed the Tolkien books, but I LOVED Jackson's movies. Everything about these films was great. Go ahead, come at me. The movies were better!
I think I sort of agree with you -
I re-read the LOTR right before the pandemic and had forgotten (my dad had read them to me as a kid), how tonally different the two halves are starting with the Two Towers the "action" half is - the half with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, and the "journey" half with Frodo and Sam. I think I agree on the action-half, that Jackson has done something incredible with the movies that just feels a bit more lightly done in the 'action' half of the books - but that the parts with Frodo and Sam are not really captured the same way in the book. But I also think Elijah Wood and Sean Astin do a helluva job creating a loving dynamic whereas the books, I found Frodo often quite introspective and even distant from the reader. I think maybe the Frodo chapters offer something a little different, while the Jackson movies are a triumphant and powerful epic (and so much credit has to go to Howard Shore's score for these movies...I almost think they couldn't work without it)
My rambling on giving away that I haven't quite nailed down my feelings. So in sum - yes, I think i agree haha
The Martian. I enjoyed the book but the script dumped the sexism, making it more enjoyable overall in my opinion.
My teenage self was a huge Chuck Palahniuk fan and I read all his works, but I sincerely believe Fight Club was better as Fincher’s film.
Totally agree.
I came to these comments just to see if someone said Fight Club! I read the book after seeing the movie, and I was shocked at how underwhelmed I was, and how better it was as a movie. Fight Club is the ONLY time I've preferred a movie to a book.
Maybe a slightly different bend but the PERFORMANCE of the reader on the AUDIOBOOK for “Project Hail Mary” should win a best picture Oscar. Just WOW!! Ryan Gossling and team have their work cut out for them to make this movie fly. It’s the science that excited me in this book/audiobook … and to leave that out of the movie will be the big shame. But I’ll go see it.
As a huge Wes Anderson fan, I would definitely throw Fantastic Mr. Fox onto the list. The Roald Dahl source material is strong, but the film is fantastic. (Sorry - I had to.)
as previously discussed, “better” is vague, but I’ll say “good book / great film” -
“The Leopard” (Visconti)
“Contempt” (Godard / Moravia )
“Conformist” ( Bertolucci / Moravia)
“Last Temptation of Christ”
“Silence of the Lambs”
Big Fish!
The book isn't bad, it's just quite different.
I'm going with Mickey 17. Mickey 7 (the book) was fine? Great concept, but it felt dated for having been published in 2023, akin in style to the Martian and Ready Player One, so ten+ years out of date. (I'm not saying it's a bad book! Just a better movie.)
A Room with a View is one that the movie had more to it than the book. In college this was a great way to start professors going all in on their beliefs on this one. Most tried to defend the book as better, but would admit they would return to the movie again and again, but one reading of the book was enough.
William Gibson’s The Peripheral is a bit of a mess plot wise. The Amazon Prime adaptation was action packed and had some great acting performances that elevated the material. So sad that it didn’t get a second season.
With the “How to Train Your Dragon” out, we rewatched the original and then got into the books. Both the original and the remake really outshine the books.
Even though this post is almost two weeks old, and I already commented above, I had to come back again because I keep thinking of others.
"The Wild Robot" a good book and a spectacular film.
"Let the Right One In" not a good book (according to me) but an absolutely gorgeous, crushing, perfect film.
Hello! In order to comment or fave, you need to be a current kottke.org member. If you'd like to sign up for a membership to support the site and join the conversation, you can explore your options here.
Existing members can sign in here. If you're a former member, you can renew your membership.
Note: If you are a member and tried to log in, it didn't work, and now you're stuck in a neverending login loop of death, try disabling any ad blockers or extensions. Or try logging out and then back in. Still having trouble? Email me!
In order to comment or fave, you need to be a current kottke.org member. Check out your options for renewal.
This is the name that'll be displayed next to comments you make on kottke.org; your email will not be displayed publicly. I'd encourage you to use your real name (or at least your first name and last initial) but you can also pick something that you go by when you participate in communities online. Choose something durable and reasonably unique (not "Me" or "anon"). Please don't change this often. No impersonation.
Note: I'm letting folks change their display names because the membership service that kottke.org uses collects full names and I thought some people might not want their names displayed publicly here. If it gets abused, I might disable this feature.
If you feel like this comment goes against the grain of the community guidelines or is otherwise inappropriate, please let me know and I will take a look at it.
Hello! In order to leave a comment, you need to be a current kottke.org member. If you'd like to sign up for a membership to support the site and join the conversation, you can explore your options here.
Existing members can sign in here. If you're a former member, you can renew your membership.
Note: If you are a member and tried to log in, it didn't work, and now you're stuck in a neverending login loop of death, try disabling any ad blockers or extensions. Or try logging out and then back in. Still having trouble? Email me!