After years of hating Kubrick's "The Shining" for not accurately portraying the themes and characters of the source material I've settled on the opinion that it is both a brilliant horror movie AND a god-awful adaptation.
It's god awful on both counts with the only positives being great cinematography and atmosphere with some truly inspired and iconic scenes. Still, iconic scenes alone doesn't make a movie, let alone a good one.
@@godoftwinkies574 for me, they both work, just in very different ways. I don't think the novella's ending would have translated well to the visual medium.
I'm a Lord of the Rings fan (I've read the Silmarillion, Lost Tales, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Farmer Giles of Ham, etc.) and appreciate why people thought the movie was better. So no, I not going to cry "Sacrilege!" I will personally disagree and would say the movies are as good as the novels. It was Peter Jackson who made one of the best adaptations ever. Some scenes were changed or added because what was written in the book would not have worked so well on the screen. However the movies did give me solid mental images when I went back and read LotR for the second time. And I will clarify with what you said by saying that The Lord of the Rings is definitely not light reading.
A macrocosm of the difference imo: going from the ferry to Bree took something like a dozen watchings to get used to, but even in the theater I was immediately like "oh, yeah, that was the right call."
I think to a lot of people who love the books the movies could never be better. But Peter Jackson showed more respect for the work than some fans give him credit for.
@@j.f.fisher5318 My thoughts exactly. My favourite addition was when Aragorn closed Frodo's hand over the ring and said, "I would have gone with you to the end. To the very fires of Mordor." Juxtaposing Aragorns reaction with Boromir's. Then there was those epic fight scene with Boromir and Aragorn against the Uruk-hai. In the novel Aragorn is simply climbing the hill looking for Frodo when he hears Boromir horn and then later finds him stuck full of arrows. Works well for the novel, pretty boring scene for a movie.
@@susanfreeman9500 100% agree. The only thing that made the movies better were the director's cut (better than the theatrical cut, that is). Twelve hours of binge watching right there. Peter Jackson said in an interview that he wanted to tell Tolkien's story, not his own. So he and Philippa Boyens did show enormous respect for the source material.
Fight Club is one of those rare times when they really understood that, when you change media, you SHOULD change style. The movie works on the visuals, being bright and flashy, ending with a bang. The book is insidious, working from characters's thoughts
While that being true, I find it really hard to say, that either is better, than the other, for exactly the reason you mentioned. If i say, the movie was better, i remember, when i was reading the book. If I say, the book was better, I see in front of me the iconic scenes, and it holds the plot twist exactly to the same point in the book as in the movie. I think they are on par. That being said, a lot of the opinions, like about LotR, is that people see the movie, and non-readers try to get into some of these books, and can't get through it, or only with struggling. They then complain about it, because it can't be, that they were choosing the "wrong" book, that's not for them, regardless, that the movie was. I mean, the Tolkien books are difficult, but they are sooo beautifully, and well written, that I can't even consider the mention seriously. The movies are good, as trilogy, the best, but they have no place on this list, and not because of top 10 mentions. Btw, if commenters were right, it would have been the first place, anyways.
I agree. I preferred the Fight Club movie over the book mostly because of the medium, but also preferred the hopeful ending versus the nihilistic book ending.
I saw the movie then read the book. I was disappointed by the book. The movies follows the book almost exactly for the first half, then they diverge. The book sells out and the bombing are don't happen.
@@JC-cb8oi Wut? Man you sure got things backwards. In the book he shot himself BECAUSE the explosives didn't go off and ended up in a mental hospital with the members as staff. In the film he actually destroyed the institutions that held the economy together. Bruuuuuh.
As for The Shining...I think Kubrick's movie plays as a counterpoint to King, who often seems to be making excuses for his own addiction. King's novel is about an alcoholic who is afraid of hurting his family. Kubrick's movie is about being afraid an alcoholic will hurt you. A key scene is how each explain Jack breaking Danny's arm. King plays it as an accident (while angrily pulling his son's arm while drunk), while Kubrick has Wendy trying to justify it to a social worker (and seeming to be trying to convince herself). I personally find King's approach harder to take as he seems blind to the damage he's doing to his own family, which doesn't seem to be violent in nature, but it's clear that a lot is being left unsaid about his behavior during his addict years.
Oh god. Spaceballs ruined me. The mere mention of someone combing through info forces my minds eye to replay that scene where those guys are literally combing the desert.
Funny thing about The Shawshank Redemption, you can read the book quicker than it takes to watch the movie. Morgan Freeman's casting as Red was a genius move. Also, Kubrick's The Shining shouldn't even be considered an adaptation. Same characters, same setting - completely different story.
You nailed it. 100% agree. But comparing book to movie is somewhat pointless. Both are brilliant, just in different ways. I'll also add in the audiobooks with Andy Serkis reading. They come to life. Another gold standard.
The way I put it, when trying to explain to folks is that the Movies are better entertainment, but the books are more impressive. Which just means that they both succeed wonderfully in their primary purpose
Similar to 1985 - Breakfast Club, Ghostbusters, Brazil, Ran, The Color Purple, Back to the Future, The Goonies, Fletch, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, etc. Great year.
I can't believe you forgot the best movie that came out in '94, Pulp Fiction... Which should've won an Academy Award for Best Picture over that overrated Gump crap.
@@dustywaynemusic6297 I was simply adding on another amazing movie(the best one, actually) from '94... Since Pulp Fiction should be mentioned anytime someone is talking about movies from '94.
Honorable mention to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Yes, it was based off the book 'Who Censored Roger Rabbit?' The movie was so good, author Gary K. Wolf retconned his own story into being just a nightmare of Jessica Rabbit.
I actually thought about mentioning Roger Rabbit as well! I would also argue that the movie was better, at least in part, because it took a story about a *newspaper* cartoon character and turned it into a (different) story about a *film* cartoon character.
Jaws is my favorite movie, I watch it multiple times a year. I’ve read the book three times so far and while I don’t dislike it, the movie is leagues better. I don’t think you’re missing much by not reading it. No one is really all that likable in the book (except maybe the shark), Hooper especially. He’s a straight up asshole. I will say this though, the opening scene of both the movie and the book are just as frightening and terrifying.
"Except maybe the shark." LMAO I'm on a waiting list for the audio book. I expect to get it in January or February. Reading some reviews (from the comments on this guy's last video), I don't think I'll enjoy it, but morbid curiosity will keep me on the list.
The one thing I'll say in favor of the book is that it has plenty of unused ideas that could have been incorporated into the sequel. Poor Harry Meadows never had the opportunity to be more than a cameo in Spielberg's film, and with Matt Hooper out making Close Encounters instead of returning to Amity, this would have been the opportune time to bring in that sidelined reporter as the co-lead. Meadows--who would've certainly been recast with a hot star of the time such as Burt Reynolds--could have spent the picture exposing the town's mob ties in the wake of the first film's events. (You could even leave him to deal with the marital infidelity instead of Brody.)
Hooper really is obnoxious in the book. I'm so glad they changed that character. Dreyfus played him SO well, and made him so likeable, he's easily my favourite character in the movie.
I don't know about your last point, though. "She reached down into the darkness. She couldn't find her foot", is way more creepy than anything in the movie opening scene.
Jurassic Park is an amazing movie, but reading the book. The mischaracterizations of almost all the characters. The toned down violence and science. From the starting accident to the final escape. The book was better
Though, the author changed a character's death because of the movie and brought back Ian Malcolm for the 2nd book. ETA the book is superior, but the author must have liked movie Ian, maybe the best casting ever, and brought him back for book 2.
Stephen King's "1408" should've been on the list. It may only be one of his short stories, but the creative minds behind adapting it to film were able to pull it out to feature length and give it some emotional gravity the book never even dreamed possible.
I feel like King's short stories and novellas really benefit when it comes to adaptations. "The Mist", "Stand By Me", "Shawshank Redemption", "The Green Mile", etc. Maybe that being shorter, it gives filmmakers more room to be creative, versus adapting a book and being forced to pick and choose what stays and what gets skipped.
@@Persewna4 I think rather it is that King is at his best with more time and space to elaborate and paint a more full picture than he can in a short story. I'm not saying any of these are bad stories, but he is an author that frequently benefits from a longer tale.
Apt Pupil is another one of his adaptations that I really like. I don't think I ever read the story, but's its one of those "Oh I didn't know Stephen King wrote this!" moments.
1408 is a great movie, but it isn't better than the short story. That is one of the few short stories I have read in my life that made my heart pound and pound in crescendo with actual story. Heck, Everything's Eventual was some of King's absolute finest short stories. I really loved them, but to each their own. I loved the short and I love the movie. I wish the other King movie Samuel L and John Cusack were both in would have been given more respect. The movie Cell was god awful, though, I don't think a lot of people loved the book. But I did. It's the most unique zombie story I have run across. lol.
The book is very good! But the horror element added in the movie made it endearing, and it is my favorite Michael Crichton book. So it ends up being a tie for me.
I wish they would make a movie for Stephen King's "The Breathing Method" so all four of the novellas in Different Seasons would have a film adaptation. It would make a nice collection (and great gift idea)😀 Also, the quality of the films that resulted from the first three novellas ... Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption, and Apt Pupil starring Sir Ian Mckellen himself! The Breathing Method was great and deserves a movie too. Who is with me? Edit: It would also be a great Christmas movie.
*SPOLIERS* It's so dark, literately a mother is decapitated and is able to still give birth. I'll watch it if they ever adapt it. I'd be willing to bet they change the gruesome ending though.
They are absolutely right about Stardust. The book is depressing, but the movie is a bright and sweet original fairy tale. Even Neil Gaiman loved the movie. Shawshank Redemption is automatically better because it was based on a short story.
I just remember being really unimpressed with Stardust. It seemed so bland and forgettable. It seems like fans of the book liked the film bringing the characters to life, but if you didn't read the book first, it was pretty mid. Based on that, I would have to assume the book was better, as you can't enjoy the movie without the book, but you can enjoy the book without the movie.
Interesting. I really enjoyed the novel Stardust, and read it twice and bought it, before the adaptation ever came out. For me, the adaptation was...fine, I guess, as far as adaptations go. It felt targeted at a slightly different audience to the book. I wonder how many people who prefer the film saw that first or are unfamiliar with Gaiman's sometimes dark and wry writing style. I feel like if you saw the film first, you'd expect the book to read more like a genuinely charming fairy tale than a sardonic take on a fairy tale.🤔 Oh well, the world would be boring if everyone thought the same way.
Well, “Gothfather” started as a 30-page script treatment. Paramount paid Mario Puzo to expand it to a novel to test if there was a market for a movie (gangster films at the time had lost a lot of box office appeal). Then when it became a best seller, they went ahead with the movie. There’s a lot of filler to get the book to novel length of about 400 pages, but the focus was always the 180 pages that would make up the script.
It feels weird to say which version of the story is better when the book and the movie tell almost completely different stories. This is the case with Roger Rabbit (though the story told in the movie is much better than that of the book) and also The Running Man (another Stephen King book.)
Crichton is probably my favorite author. I started reading his stuff in middle school and have always been a huge fan, but if you didn't really connect with the 3 you listed here, I would genuinely recommend trying Sphere. If you've got it in you to give his writing another chance, I really believe that book is one of his absolute best!
I loved Congo, the book, and was very disappointed in the movie. Jurassic World, the book is great. Andromeda strain, was my first MC and was a fan forever.
@@nealjroberts4050 Depends on what you’re considering early. Sphere was technically not considered a really early work for him but is one of his best for sure. Micro (which was most but not all his writing due to his death) was also really solid and fun. I enjoy all his work but to each their own.
@@connersowards79 I noticed a steady deterioration after Lost World. Suddenly every scientist not in a university, then later every scientist, was in it for money and power. Discoveries were either hoaxes or secret conspiracies. Etc etc.
The Lord of The Rings movies are good, but I absolutely love the books. The characters are so much deeper in the movie. You don't really get a sense of who the most of the supporting characters are in the movie. You really get to know Merry, Pippin, Legolas, Gimli and Treebeard in the books.
The treebeard section in the second book actually made me stop reading it. I remember trying to power through it for days and it was so painfully boring I just couldn’t. I should really start over again and just skip that section because I feel like I should finish the trilogy. Especially since I was able to breeze through the first book and the first half of the second book.
@@sortehuse There's two main things I think most people have forgotten about the production of LotR 1: Fantasy was an absolute non-starter unless it was a kid's tale like The Neverending Story. They didn't know until the box office reciepts for Fellowship came in if they would even be able to finish. 2: Because of this, getting funding was impossible. Before New Line, the closest offer PJ got was from Harvey Weinstein to make two films. In a world of Game of Thrones and studios throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars on series only to cancel them after one season, it's hard to remember what an absolute gamble it was for everyone involved for LotR
@@LordSluggo The movies are very good and they was revolutionary when they where made, but don't forget that so where the books. They brought fantasy into the mainstream and had deep a detailed would that defined what the genre would become.
Seriously one of the worst books I’ve ever read. I’m shocked they pulled that movie from the book. And Gump & Co. is worse in a completely different way.
Not knowing whether you covered it in the last video OR this one,I'm going to throw out the first thing that popped into my head: Hannibal. The film hasn't aged well in the eyes of the public,but I promise that the book is far worse.
David Cronenberg's adaptation of William S. Burroughs Naked Lunch is in my opinion the greatest adaptation ever made. The way they fuse themes and visual imagery from the book with a semi-biographical story about how Burroughs wrote the book in Tangiers is masterful. To me it still is Cronenbergs best work but unfortunately one of his lesser known ones.
I don’t think anyone mentioned Angel Heart? Much better than the novel Falling Angel it was based on. The idea of moving the plot from NYC to Louisiana was genius.
I absolutly loved the three LOTR movies. They writers, director and cast all were wonderful and did a fantastic job. Better than the book, though? Sorry, but no. I'm an absolute Tolkien fanatic, though. I've read LOTR close to 30 times. I've got multiple copies of the Hobbit, LOTR, and Silmarillion. I've got copies of every book Christopher edited of his father's work, and a half dozen different books analyzing everything Tolkien ever wrote. 😁
The movies are great, but even the extended editions don't have enough time to include everything. I remember being disappointed in the theater watching the first movie and entire first half of Fellowship of the ring book was condensed into about 45 minutes of the film. There was so much missing. Objectively, it made sense to skip, but I still remember the disappointment.
I agree and I have recently read The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings borrowing my father's very old translated copies. I also saw the movies as a child but it was not the movies that made me read the books nor the various video games i've played, it was instead the work of a single band that finally coninced me: Blind Guardian with their best album Nightfall In Middle Earth. I have a Nightfall In Middle Earth shirt which I adore since it combines two of my greatest interests: metal music and fantasy books. There is a lot of bands and good songs that are inspired by Tolkien's works and the metal scene wouldn't be anywhere without his amazing books.
Also, I have to mention that my grandfather read Jaws the book. He really thought it would make such a great movie. He unfortunately got cancer and passed away before getting a chance to see Jaws in theaters. But I remember that was one thing he was happy about before he died. He was glad to hear Hollywood was making it into a movie. I know he would have loved the finished film.
I totally understand why people like the movie adaptation of The Shining more - it's one of the most well-crafted movies, Kubrick was just a genius. In terms of filmmaking this is peak. But in terms of writing I must agree that I do like the book more. It's much more grounded and Jack's character arc in the book is just heart-wrenching while in the movie he felt a bit more "house changed him" (which is not false but completely different vibe). I also think it would be really hard to adapt it as it is in the book (too much internal monologues/psychosis), so Kubrick just got the atmosphere and crafted a well-made horror out of it
The only thing about Jurassic Park that I preferred, movie vs bookcase, was having the Rex fight the raptors. Apart from that, the book had a lot more Dinosaur stuff.
I personally love Michael Crichton. I will say that I felt that Congo and The Lost World were two of his weakest works. I typically recommend Andromodea Strain, Jurassic Park, or Timeline first.
The Shining really is a great movie. I haven't read the book since high school (over 20 years) but I do remember it being apples and oranges. Both great, but the book does have better character development.
I think you’d appreciate LotR more as an adult. I had the same experience where I struggled through the books in my early teens as the movies were coming out and DNFed them. But then reading it as an adult LotR is my absolute favorite book of all time. I re-read it regularly, and yes, as phenomenal as the movies are and as much as I love them, the book is better. I remember his descriptions of landscapes and settings going on for ages and being very dry, but then as an adult, I actually found that his descriptions were concise and fantastic at setting the tone and mood. Turns out Tolkien is a great horror writer! Some of those scenes with the Nazgûl were properly haunting. The only part I think people might struggle with is how long it takes to get to Rivendell and Tom Bombadil, but honestly I think some of the best humor is in Frodo preparing to leave the Shire (at one point he’s surprised Merry and Pippin knew he was leaving and they’re like “yeah, you kept gazing fondly over the hills and muttering to yourself how much you would miss them, so you weren’t exactly cryptic” 😂) and by the time Tom shows up, you’ve been so spooked by Nazgûl, wights, and evil trees that it’s a relief to find Tom and Goldberry’s sanctuary in the woods. Seriously, the book is better than you remember, so try one more time as an adult and see if you like it better. It’s still not for everyone, though.
I read it at 14 and I love it since then, but I was already into fantasy and long books and mithology at the time, so I think I 'm an exception. The only thing I found difficult in reading LOTR was all the poetry. So the first time I skipped it totally and it worked!
Ihave read Lord of the Rings every year since about 1968, actually the first novel I ever read. I have seen the movies numerous times and really enjoyed them. I think Peter Jackson did a good job even though he changed or added numerous elements but to whittle it down to 3 movies and hold the audiences attention it was necessary. He maintained the themes and mood of the books very well. You almost need to look at both as masterpieces that tell the same story from different points of view. The book though was better.
So do you remember the old HB cartoons? I do. Those were so bad they were good. I especially loved where they animation style changes at the end of Return of the King.
@@deanaarmstrong3976 I just downloaded and watched the old animated Hobbit and LOTR movies this summer. I think The Hobbit one is quite good, but the LOTR and RotK ones are terrible.
The movies are great and I love them, but I really dislike how they treated the character of Faramir. The movies really did a number on him. I also didn't really like how Cate Blanchett ended the Galadriel's mirror scene. She sounds kind of surprised when she says "I pass the test". In my mind when I read the book, she sounds resolute when she says it. She makes the decision to not give into the temptation of the Ring. The movie plays it as if the decision comes from somewhere outside of herself.
Jurassic Park is good popcorn, but very silly. Great acting and visuals. As a writer, Crichton's best character is always Science. He's not someone you read for characters work. I rate book and movie as even for comparative strengths and flaws
Have you noticed in his later books Science is embittered and twisted, a Frankenstein in both senses? It got pretty tiresome. I think I stopped at Next when the misrepresentation became too much.
@@nealjroberts4050 Or maybe, AS a scientist, he was developing an increasingly accurate perception of science running up against its practical limitations (a modern development that was accurately predicted by Nietzsche, among others).
@@nealjroberts4050 I don't think I made it that far. I can't remember finishing one after Prey. Dragon Teeth was good, breezy historical fiction though.
I was about 112 when I read LOTR and The Hobbit novels and I loved them both. It was over a decade late when I saw the movies and I loved them. Were they a perfect adaptation? No but they are the best adaptation we will ever get.
Everyone gets to the end of The Mist and is just awestruck and in shock and it's just so crazy. I saw it and thought it was anticlimactic and kind of stupid.
The movie has a happy ending: humanity clearly survives, courtesy of the U.S. Army. (Too bad about the protagonist). The King story has an ambiguous ending, the survival of humanity an open question. King was stupid to shill for the movie.
Great video, like the first. Another really good one is V For Vendetta, though that's not to say the source material is bad. Quite the opposite, it's really good. But the movie strays from the source material, either through changes or flat out omissions, it's terrific on its own merits. The movie isn't quite "In name only," but in some ways, it flirts with that. I will say the ending for the graphic novel is superior in its ambiguity, where the movie is all "Yay, we beat the big bads, we're all free now, yay!" Still, both are great, based on their own unique merits. I'd love to see another of these kind of lists from you.
Ditto. I see his skill, but aside from Full Metal Jacket, I don’t enjoy his movies at all. And FMJ is in the “I never want to watch it again” category. It was good to see once. There are plenty of authors , directors, and musicians for me in the “skilled but not to my taste” pile. Feeling that way is socially acceptable in music, mostly tolerated among readers, and heresy among cinephiles 😅.
I mean, it's pretty crazy to _slam_ someone for what they like (or don't) I think. We're all just swapping opinions at the end of the day :). To me "2001: A Space Odyssey" is one of those rare movies that _actually_ changed cinema and basically a masterpiece. But he had some complete misses for me too. So it goes :).
I liked 2001. Sort of. When I saw the movie in the theater about a year after release, the sound glitched out for about ten minutes and we all presumed it was the movie. Only long after when I saw the movie again did I realize it was the sound system malfunction-- not Kubrick.
For me, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is much better than the book. It's better paced, has one of the best versions of Voldemort, the acting is elevated from the first movie. Having Hermione be the one to explain Mudbloods to Harry is a heartbreaking scene.
LOTR's lure is in the world building. It's the same way people like me would have said the GOT series were better than the books if they had stopped at season 5. Because if you read the books AFTER watching the first 3 seasons, you'd also struggle to get through them.
Stephen King himself said that the movie ending of the Mist was better than the book. In terms of The Princess Bride, the book and the screenplay were written by the same person and William Golding is actually better known for screenwriting which probably is the reason that the film was better. Interestingly, all the best Stephen King film adaptations seem to come from Frank Darabont, apart from The Green Mile
I first read the Lord of the Rings when I was 12 (1989) and read it again once a year for maybe 10 years. And I have to say... The movies are indeed better. Among fantasy fans, many (mostly the oldest ones) find my opinion to be an heresy, but here it is : Tolkien was an amazing worldbuilder, but, as a writer, his writing is indeed very dry, imo. He was an university professor, and his books have that "scholarly" quality to them.
Lord of the Rings: I - love - the movies, I have watched them four times at least (which is quite an achievement for me), but the books are better, deeper and more meaningful on so many levels it is not comparable.
Michael Crichton wrote screenplays in novel form. Every book he wrote was with a movie deal in mind. Don't know if he ever admitted that but having read a ton of his books, that is a hill I will die on.
The Princess Bride (book) is better than the movie. They are very similar, both being written by the same person, but the book reads like an extended version of the movie, with the movie being a theatrical cut. They really could be considered on par. But there are three things that put the book above the film. First, we get to see Inigo's childhood. So, when he goes after the 6 fingered man - we actually saw his father be killed and know that Inigo saw it first hand. Second, we get to see Fezzik's childhood as well, and third: The Zoo of Death!
Agreed. I think this is a case of if you saw the movie first the book is not exactly what you’re expecting. However, the humor in the book is more sophisticated and less cartoony and each character has an amazing backstory that’s mostly lost in the film. The Man in Black is genuinely mysterious and way more badass and his journey to become the Dread Pirate Roberts is whittled down to a line in the movie. There’s so much missing in the film that I wish they would turn this into a miniseries.
It's one of those fairly rare occasions where the movie is a really great _adaptation_ BUT the book is still better (IMO) partly _because_ it's a book. There are just some stories that work better when the teller is effectively inside your head I think.
Im subbed now that video was the first video the algorithm ever send me by you despite watching similar in depth movie review channels in the past 6 to 8 years
I am so surprised that, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, wasn't even mentioned. To me it is the quintessential, the movie is better than the book. Heck, the author liked the movie so much more than his own book that in the follow up book to the series he made the movie cannon as opposed to the book he had written.
The 40 yr old checklist: Fight Club Jurassic Park --> Congo pipeline Lord of the Rings movies Having just turned 40, I can relate to all of this dude. The further the video went I was like "yeah me too, man". 😂
I’d be interested in Rammels opinion on Doctor Sleep book. I scanned his vids and didn’t notice anything Shining is one of my favs and I loved how Dr. Sleep fit with it and Kings universe
Jurassic Park like I said on the other video I think the characters make a lot more sense in the book which made the story overall work better for me (aka the master hunter guy has survival skills and the Hammond is old and doesn't get off the island). The characters felt more fleshed out in the movie... and like I said in the other comment... the movie had real dinosaurs... Jaws the story is fine in the book, but the characters were so unlikable to me in that. It's less about the shark (similar to the movie) and more about the interpersonal relationships so when ALL of the characters aside from Chief are shitty it plays a lot worse for me. If you haven't seen Jaws in awhile you should revisit it! As a kid I remembered it and loved it for all the shark scenes. When I rewatched it later in life expecting to love it more ironically cause the shark looks so fake, my brain was much more media literate and realized how wonderfully it was shot and written and how great the characters are in the movie.
Nah. Jurassic Park's movie is nowhere near as good as the book. It's a cool movie but the book was AWESOME! The book was dark and terrifying. The movie is just a theme park ride.
Jeff Goldblum as Ian Malcolm might be one of the best castings ever. The book is better, but his portrayal convinced the author to bring him back from the dead and make his character the MC of the sequel.
I get why people chose Fight Club, but I think if the movie is better it's only barely, and the work that the book puts in is at a level comparable. So much of what makes the movie iconic, outside of the camera moves and the actors chosen, is directly IN the book. It's actually an incredibly accurate adaptation of the book and Palahniuk's writing style. The themes of each story are nearly the same all the way through. The biggest difference between the two is the very last page, and that Palahniuk was a bit more nihilistic while Fincher actually throws in hints of hope throughout. What Fincher did was beyond what anybody could ask for an accurate adaptation. Palahniuk's words, and atmosphere are all over that thing. I think it would be difficult for me to say which is better, but maybe for the slight hopefulness, Fincher edges out on top, but genuinely they feel equal to me.
2 things... 1) I didn't vote, but probably should have (I would have said Stand By Me) and 2) Though I agree with you regarding The Shining, I love that the book version of Doctor Sleep is only a sequel to the book version of The Shining, and the movie version of Doctor Sleep is only a sequel to the movie version of The Shining
Fight Club book is great, and a really fast (and short) read, but the last five minutes of the movie alone until the Pixies pipe up while the buildings explode would have been enough to elevate the movie for me, even if the rest had been meh
I agree with LOTR . I've made 3 attempts to get through the 1st book. Can't do it. I'm surprised Die Hard isn't on the list. If there's a future list, let this be my entry. Subbed.
# 7 - "The Shining" - Stanley Kubrick's "adaptation" was so bad, Stephen King penned and produced a three-part mini-series for TV to rectify it. I'd bet most people who thought Kubrick's film was abysmal wouldn't have a problem if the film were titled, "The Overlook". But Kubrick missed the mark on this one.
The miniseries was pretty weak, and it demonstrated two things: 1. Kubrick's version was still close enough to the book to make the remake feel completely redundant. 2. An ax is significantly scarier than a croquet mallet. It gets points for giving Jack a much better character arc than "guy who clearly wants to kill his family to guy who tries to kill his family," but for all the notable improvements in characterization, it came with serious detriments to the mood and tension. The Stephen King TV adaptations of the 90s were never all that scary, but this one was particularly terrorless (unless you're horrified by just how bad the CGI looked). Then Doctor Sleep came along and showed that you can make a movie as eerie as The Shining without committing character assassination in the process.
Anyone else think The Shining novel isn't scary but the movie actually is? Also, I've never met anyone who read the book who knew the twist--of which King is so proud--until they saw the ABC special or read the sequel.
The Body and Shawshank are coupled with Apt Pupil and The Breathing Method in the Different Seasons collection of novellas. The Mist was in the short story collection Skeleton Crew. I've read Different Seasons and own a copy of Skeleton Crew but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
I'd be curious to see you (forgive me if you already have, I'm relatively new to discovering this channel!) do a deep dive on the Dragon Tattoo books & films. I've never read the books, I was underwhelmed by the original Swedish language films, but Loved David Fincher's English language adaptation. For simplicity, let's just stick to the first title in the series for each. since I haven't read them, I don't have any reference to the source material when watching the films. I'd be interested to hear a proper comparison between the book and both films
The Swedish films are a quite good adaptation. The Fincher film it isn't. But I recommend to try at least the first book. The characters are fantastic, in my opinion
I don't read fiction personally. I have a hard time getting into books like that. I am a visual and sound guy. I have read a few fiction books and just have a hard time connecting emotionally to the characters because I can't see them. Same reason I don't feel much when reading about real-life tragedies.
I would say though that the movies had better pacing, but Frodo’s story doesn’t translate to movies, therefore I can’t really say one is better than the other.
I don't really remember the movies much but I did recently read all of the books in chronological order for Middle Earth so I went: The Silmarillion - The Hobbit - The Lord Of The Rings. I think the books and the movies both do what they are trying to do well but I will always prefer the books. I also have read The Adventures Of Tom Bombadill and unlike the other books which were borrowed from my father's collection this book is mine, it was a farewell gift from someone at my internship because he himself is a Tolkien fan and he had asked me if my father owned that book. Another farewell gift I have gotten from that internship which is also Tolkien related in some way is my Nightfall In Middle Earth shirt from the band Blind Guardian. The art depicts a moment from the story of Beren and Lúthien, it is Morgoth on his throne while Lúthien dances him to sleep. It was that particular album that got me to pick up The Silmarillion and it is my favourite Blind Guardian album for good reason, I think it is the best adaptation for at least a part of The Silmarillion.
@@alexdoorn234I love that album, too. How I would love to see a good adaptation of the story of Beren and Luthien in a movie! I don't know if it would be possible because it is very difficult to adapt and I fear it would be a horrible movie. Maybe it's better not to try
Another excellent video! I wish my suggestion had shown up (Dune movie is better than the book), but I do understand that not all of them are gonna make the top 10 list. But, another great video. Thanks for taking the time to make it!
People disliking "The Shining" because of the differences with the book are doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Has ANYBODY seen the video of Shelley Duvall babbling? I believe that was the DIRECT result of Stanley Kubrick's abuse of her during the filming of that movie. The only thing worse are so-called "fans" dismissing Kubrick's treatment of her and her suffering.
William Goldman wrote both the novel and the script of The Princess Bride and he knew a lot about how movies work ( Butch Cassidy, All The President's Men) As well as the perfect cast, those who prefer the movie may be responding more than to reading it. The kissing is better too.
I disagree with respect to Jurassic Park. That book had so much depth. It is arguable that the subject concerned the complexity and instability of modern digital systems rather than dinosaurs.
@@WatchMaga Then we disagree. That was the first Michael Crichton book I read. It seems like he read a few articles and wrote a book. It wasn’t very deep. It could have been but it always seemed palatability was more important to Crichton than depth. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It depends on what you want.
I highly recommend taking a couple of hours and watch Jaws again. It easily makes my top 5 favourite movies of all time. What makes this movie so great is the relationship of the 3 main characters in the second half of the movie. I have read the book, and I can definitely say, if you never read it in your life, you're not missing anything. I decided to read the book for an assignment in high school because I thought it would be interesting to make a comparison, and it was just awful (IMO). BUT, I can see why they thought it would make a good movie back in the 70s.
To quote Sir Terry Pratchett, "Any magical Kingdom, all of who's troubles can be resolved by the destruction of one ring, isn't much of a magical kingdom!" That should feed the haters and fanatics lol
If Sir Terry had actually read the book, he would have realized that 1. The destruction of the Ring did not by any means end the troubles of any of the parties. It took many years and battles afterwards to set things right, and for Frodo it was only resolved when he left Middle Earth entirely. 2. Gondor was not a magical kingdom. At best it was magic-adjacent, since its people had a history of association with elves. For the actual magical kingdoms, Rivendell and Lothlorien, the destruction of the Ring meant the end of their existence, which is hardly an example of problem-solving.
Sir Terry also said (paraphrasing) that Lord of the Rings is to fantasy as Mt Fuji is to Japanese landscapes: it is either obvious from its presence or its absence, meaning that every Western fantasy story since LOTR is either informed by Tolkien and this sharing his shadow or is doing its damnedest to be something clearly other, thus being on the sunny side of the mountain. The mountain is there either way.
I'd throw in LA Confidential by Ellroy. My mother who is a super seasoned reader, who's read a book a fortnight for the last 40 years. Had a torrid time. It's a HARD book to follow and keep track of the moving parts. BUT it's super rewarding. It rewards you for paying attention. And so does the film. The film is a masterpiece.
Thanks for plowing through those comments! It's such an overlooked movie that I didn't see anyone mention it in the thread of your previous vid, but Logan's Run is worthy. The book's end premise is kinda pointless.
I was in my late 40s when I read the Hobbit and the LOTR books, and it was just a dry and difficult to navigate as it probably was to you reading it as a child. They are masterworks of literature, and I won't say the movies are BETTER, but I will say they are more ENTERTAINING. And still probably get lambasted for it. Oh, and I strongly recommend reading The Princess Bride. You will love it. Especially if you loved the movie as a child, you will appreciate the relative sophistication of the book as an adult. There is a lot more going on (including a frame story featuring a fictionalized version of the author Bill Goldman) but the movie is still very faithful to the core story. I love them both.
The Firm was a movie I thought had an infinitely better ending than the book. The story involves a lawyer (Tom Cruise) getting involved with a mafia run law firm and he's trying to figure out a way out that will let him keep practicing law and not having to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life. The book ends with him stealing a bunch of money, sending evidence to the police, and going into hiding... so he achieved none of his stated objectives and the book plays it off as a slam dunk victory. The movie let's him take down the law firm without passing off the mafia as he exposed the firm ripping them off. He kept his license and is safe.
I had a similar experience with LotR - I first read it in my early teens (before even the fantastic animated movie came out) and it was such a struggle... Tom Bombadil dragged on and on... I went back and re-read it in my 20s and it just flowed... I dedicated far more time to it in each sitting, and I got through it in less than a month - the experience was SO MUCH better. Anyway... 30 years on and I'm still upset they never finished the animated version!!
That part is unique to the film. It's kind of ingenious how the story of the book is simplified down to be a movie. But it would be like if the film were from the point of view of the kid, when he was grown up, wanting his son to read the book that his Grandfather read to him when he was sick. But then, when he buys a copy, his son hates it. So, he re-reads the book as an adult and realizes that the book that his Grandfather read him isn't actually the book at all. That his Grandfather was making up the story (as he went) and it was just a retelling of the book done much better. Then, he commissions his Grandfather's version of the book to be printed instead because he wants other people to read what the book that got him into reading even though that book doesn't exist and never has. All that with notes to his publisher about why they can't make certain changes to the book while definitely making other changes is why THE BOOK IS ACTUALLY BETTER.
i had the same problem reading lofr as a teenager. tried to read the books when the movies came out. even, as you did, stopped reading them in the middle of book two. now as an full grown adult i started to read them again. this time i finished them. and man was it a blast. give the books a new try and i will ensure you you'll like them
4:16 I have read "The Princess Bride" and seen the movie naturally, the movie takes stuff right from the book, and cuts out other stuff, I would have to agree, but I can't remember if the book came out after the movie or not. Idk why I think it would, it is a satire on fairy tales and epic fantasy stories. As for a movie better than the book? Easy, "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs" takes the crown for me. There's honestly almost zero overlap between the stories except for the most basic of the concepts which is: a place that rains food, but then the food starts to get too big, so they have to leave or risk being crushed by the food. Everything else is different, but it's fine for me bc the OG is a kids book, and the movie really fleshes things out into a full out story
For Michael Crichton, I loved his book Timeline. The movie adaptation was ok, entertaining, but nowhere near as good as the book which I had read previously.
After years of hating Kubrick's "The Shining" for not accurately portraying the themes and characters of the source material I've settled on the opinion that it is both a brilliant horror movie AND a god-awful adaptation.
I think both the book and movie are overrated, but the book is still more interesting than the movie.
Heh! Same!
It's god awful on both counts with the only positives being great cinematography and atmosphere with some truly inspired and iconic scenes. Still, iconic scenes alone doesn't make a movie, let alone a good one.
Yep.
I think adaptation is not what Kubrick did. He used it as source material and told a different story.
Didn't Stephen King say he liked the Mist movie ending better than his own
Indeed he did.
I didn't like the movies end. The ambiguity of the book's end was better.
@@godoftwinkies574 for me, they both work, just in very different ways. I don't think the novella's ending would have translated well to the visual medium.
@@godoftwinkies574 Agreed... I don't like directors messing with authors work as a rule...
Yes
I'm a Lord of the Rings fan (I've read the Silmarillion, Lost Tales, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Farmer Giles of Ham, etc.) and appreciate why people thought the movie was better. So no, I not going to cry "Sacrilege!"
I will personally disagree and would say the movies are as good as the novels. It was Peter Jackson who made one of the best adaptations ever. Some scenes were changed or added because what was written in the book would not have worked so well on the screen. However the movies did give me solid mental images when I went back and read LotR for the second time.
And I will clarify with what you said by saying that The Lord of the Rings is definitely not light reading.
A macrocosm of the difference imo: going from the ferry to Bree took something like a dozen watchings to get used to, but even in the theater I was immediately like "oh, yeah, that was the right call."
Agreed.
I think to a lot of people who love the books the movies could never be better. But Peter Jackson showed more respect for the work than some fans give him credit for.
@@j.f.fisher5318 My thoughts exactly. My favourite addition was when Aragorn closed Frodo's hand over the ring and said, "I would have gone with you to the end. To the very fires of Mordor." Juxtaposing Aragorns reaction with Boromir's. Then there was those epic fight scene with Boromir and Aragorn against the Uruk-hai. In the novel Aragorn is simply climbing the hill looking for Frodo when he hears Boromir horn and then later finds him stuck full of arrows. Works well for the novel, pretty boring scene for a movie.
@@susanfreeman9500 100% agree. The only thing that made the movies better were the director's cut (better than the theatrical cut, that is). Twelve hours of binge watching right there. Peter Jackson said in an interview that he wanted to tell Tolkien's story, not his own. So he and Philippa Boyens did show enormous respect for the source material.
Fight Club is one of those rare times when they really understood that, when you change media, you SHOULD change style. The movie works on the visuals, being bright and flashy, ending with a bang. The book is insidious, working from characters's thoughts
You’re breaking the first 2 rules
While that being true, I find it really hard to say, that either is better, than the other, for exactly the reason you mentioned. If i say, the movie was better, i remember, when i was reading the book. If I say, the book was better, I see in front of me the iconic scenes, and it holds the plot twist exactly to the same point in the book as in the movie. I think they are on par.
That being said, a lot of the opinions, like about LotR, is that people see the movie, and non-readers try to get into some of these books, and can't get through it, or only with struggling. They then complain about it, because it can't be, that they were choosing the "wrong" book, that's not for them, regardless, that the movie was. I mean, the Tolkien books are difficult, but they are sooo beautifully, and well written, that I can't even consider the mention seriously. The movies are good, as trilogy, the best, but they have no place on this list, and not because of top 10 mentions. Btw, if commenters were right, it would have been the first place, anyways.
I agree. I preferred the Fight Club movie over the book mostly because of the medium, but also preferred the hopeful ending versus the nihilistic book ending.
I saw the movie then read the book. I was disappointed by the book. The movies follows the book almost exactly for the first half, then they diverge. The book sells out and the bombing are don't happen.
@@JC-cb8oi Wut? Man you sure got things backwards. In the book he shot himself BECAUSE the explosives didn't go off and ended up in a mental hospital with the members as staff. In the film he actually destroyed the institutions that held the economy together. Bruuuuuh.
As for The Shining...I think Kubrick's movie plays as a counterpoint to King, who often seems to be making excuses for his own addiction.
King's novel is about an alcoholic who is afraid of hurting his family. Kubrick's movie is about being afraid an alcoholic will hurt you. A key scene is how each explain Jack breaking Danny's arm. King plays it as an accident (while angrily pulling his son's arm while drunk), while Kubrick has Wendy trying to justify it to a social worker (and seeming to be trying to convince herself). I personally find King's approach harder to take as he seems blind to the damage he's doing to his own family, which doesn't seem to be violent in nature, but it's clear that a lot is being left unsaid about his behavior during his addict years.
Oh god. Spaceballs ruined me. The mere mention of someone combing through info forces my minds eye to replay that scene where those guys are literally combing the desert.
🤣🤣
"We ain't found shit!"
“What are you preparing? You’re always preparing! Just go!”
Whats the matter Colonel Sanders.....chicken?
i see your Schwartz is as big as mine
Funny thing about The Shawshank Redemption, you can read the book quicker than it takes to watch the movie. Morgan Freeman's casting as Red was a genius move.
Also, Kubrick's The Shining shouldn't even be considered an adaptation. Same characters, same setting - completely different story.
The Shining movie is mediocre.
@@eddiek8179 unscary, badly miscast, boring, pretentious, pointless
The Lord of the Ring movies are to Movies,
What The Lord of the Ring books are to Books.
Both are The Measure for Fantasy in Both Mediums.
You nailed it. 100% agree. But comparing book to movie is somewhat pointless. Both are brilliant, just in different ways. I'll also add in the audiobooks with Andy Serkis reading. They come to life. Another gold standard.
Agree 100%!!!
The way I put it, when trying to explain to folks is that the Movies are better entertainment, but the books are more impressive.
Which just means that they both succeed wonderfully in their primary purpose
Hubby and I were just debating this and we have different opinions on which is better but we could both get behind this statement.
Yes! That is exactly what I was thinking. I like both equally for they each are in their own right.
Funnily enough, Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump, and Jurassic Park all came out in '94. What a year for movies.
Similar to 1985 - Breakfast Club, Ghostbusters, Brazil, Ran, The Color Purple, Back to the Future, The Goonies, Fletch, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, etc. Great year.
Jurassic park came out in 1993
It is my favorite movie of all time so I felt the need to correct.
I can't believe you forgot the best movie that came out in '94, Pulp Fiction... Which should've won an Academy Award for Best Picture over that overrated Gump crap.
@@userunknown1578Pulp Fiction wasn't an adaptation of a novel... You do know that's what this video is about right?
@@dustywaynemusic6297 I was simply adding on another amazing movie(the best one, actually) from '94... Since Pulp Fiction should be mentioned anytime someone is talking about movies from '94.
Crichton's Andromeda Strain was close to the film, but substituting Kate Reid for the male character of the book was a brilliant move.
And not trying to put in a romantic subplot.
Honorable mention to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Yes, it was based off the book 'Who Censored Roger Rabbit?' The movie was so good, author Gary K. Wolf retconned his own story into being just a nightmare of Jessica Rabbit.
I actually thought about mentioning Roger Rabbit as well! I would also argue that the movie was better, at least in part, because it took a story about a *newspaper* cartoon character and turned it into a (different) story about a *film* cartoon character.
I agree. Wolf couldn't really continue from where his book left off for the same reason the author of First Blood couldn't do so.
Jaws is my favorite movie, I watch it multiple times a year. I’ve read the book three times so far and while I don’t dislike it, the movie is leagues better. I don’t think you’re missing much by not reading it. No one is really all that likable in the book (except maybe the shark), Hooper especially. He’s a straight up asshole. I will say this though, the opening scene of both the movie and the book are just as frightening and terrifying.
"Except maybe the shark." LMAO
I'm on a waiting list for the audio book. I expect to get it in January or February. Reading some reviews (from the comments on this guy's last video), I don't think I'll enjoy it, but morbid curiosity will keep me on the list.
The one thing I'll say in favor of the book is that it has plenty of unused ideas that could have been incorporated into the sequel. Poor Harry Meadows never had the opportunity to be more than a cameo in Spielberg's film, and with Matt Hooper out making Close Encounters instead of returning to Amity, this would have been the opportune time to bring in that sidelined reporter as the co-lead. Meadows--who would've certainly been recast with a hot star of the time such as Burt Reynolds--could have spent the picture exposing the town's mob ties in the wake of the first film's events. (You could even leave him to deal with the marital infidelity instead of Brody.)
Quite true.
Hooper really is obnoxious in the book. I'm so glad they changed that character. Dreyfus played him SO well, and made him so likeable, he's easily my favourite character in the movie.
I don't know about your last point, though. "She reached down into the darkness. She couldn't find her foot", is way more creepy than anything in the movie opening scene.
Jurassic Park is an amazing movie, but reading the book. The mischaracterizations of almost all the characters. The toned down violence and science. From the starting accident to the final escape. The book was better
I'll agree, but I like the Lost World (book) better
Also, the parts they cut out were just cool.
Without a doubt it was better
Though, the author changed a character's death because of the movie and brought back Ian Malcolm for the 2nd book.
ETA the book is superior, but the author must have liked movie Ian, maybe the best casting ever, and brought him back for book 2.
@tiffanysandmeier4753 Ian was basically his self insert character. When Spielberg asked him to write a sequel, he brought back his self insert.
Stephen King's "1408" should've been on the list. It may only be one of his short stories, but the creative minds behind adapting it to film were able to pull it out to feature length and give it some emotional gravity the book never even dreamed possible.
I feel like King's short stories and novellas really benefit when it comes to adaptations. "The Mist", "Stand By Me", "Shawshank Redemption", "The Green Mile", etc. Maybe that being shorter, it gives filmmakers more room to be creative, versus adapting a book and being forced to pick and choose what stays and what gets skipped.
@@Persewna4 I think rather it is that King is at his best with more time and space to elaborate and paint a more full picture than he can in a short story. I'm not saying any of these are bad stories, but he is an author that frequently benefits from a longer tale.
Apt Pupil is another one of his adaptations that I really like. I don't think I ever read the story, but's its one of those "Oh I didn't know Stephen King wrote this!" moments.
1408 is a great movie, but it isn't better than the short story. That is one of the few short stories I have read in my life that made my heart pound and pound in crescendo with actual story. Heck, Everything's Eventual was some of King's absolute finest short stories. I really loved them, but to each their own. I loved the short and I love the movie. I wish the other King movie Samuel L and John Cusack were both in would have been given more respect. The movie Cell was god awful, though, I don't think a lot of people loved the book. But I did. It's the most unique zombie story I have run across. lol.
"Stephen King has some of the best adaptations ever."
*0.0000000000000000001 seconds later*
"HE ALSO HAS SOME OF THE WORST!"
As long as we all agree that The Running Man was one of the best ones. :D
@@Raguleader I haven't seen, or read that one yet, so I can't say. lol
"13Th warrior" is better than "Eaters of the Dead"... ok the movie is not "famous"..but is fun!
My favourite movie to watch once a year. It’s just absolute joy to watch and so quotable.
@@Becka_Harper great taste! Crazy fun movie, love it so much. Oh and the ost is legendary.
The book is very good! But the horror element added in the movie made it endearing, and it is my favorite Michael Crichton book. So it ends up being a tie for me.
@@bpita0202 It's crazy to me that he talks about that book as being mostly a dare.
Decent book. Awesome movie. Criminally underrated.
You should try the Princess Bride novel. Yes, the film is iconic but the book is pretty damn good as well.
I wish they would make a movie for Stephen King's "The Breathing Method" so all four of the novellas in Different Seasons would have a film adaptation. It would make a nice collection (and great gift idea)😀 Also, the quality of the films that resulted from the first three novellas ... Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption, and Apt Pupil starring Sir Ian Mckellen himself! The Breathing Method was great and deserves a movie too. Who is with me?
Edit: It would also be a great Christmas movie.
*SPOLIERS* It's so dark, literately a mother is decapitated and is able to still give birth. I'll watch it if they ever adapt it. I'd be willing to bet they change the gruesome ending though.
They are absolutely right about Stardust. The book is depressing, but the movie is a bright and sweet original fairy tale. Even Neil Gaiman loved the movie.
Shawshank Redemption is automatically better because it was based on a short story.
I just love Stardust. I’ve read the book years ago, but I’ve seen the movie dozens of times and it’s one of my all time faves.
I just remember being really unimpressed with Stardust. It seemed so bland and forgettable.
It seems like fans of the book liked the film bringing the characters to life, but if you didn't read the book first, it was pretty mid. Based on that, I would have to assume the book was better, as you can't enjoy the movie without the book, but you can enjoy the book without the movie.
@@jaredwonnacott9732 There's lot's of people who love the movie who have never read the book
@@ser132 I am one of them, though I am currently reading it. So far, and it may just me being biased, I prefer the movie.
Interesting. I really enjoyed the novel Stardust, and read it twice and bought it, before the adaptation ever came out. For me, the adaptation was...fine, I guess, as far as adaptations go. It felt targeted at a slightly different audience to the book. I wonder how many people who prefer the film saw that first or are unfamiliar with Gaiman's sometimes dark and wry writing style. I feel like if you saw the film first, you'd expect the book to read more like a genuinely charming fairy tale than a sardonic take on a fairy tale.🤔 Oh well, the world would be boring if everyone thought the same way.
Well, “Gothfather” started as a 30-page script treatment. Paramount paid Mario Puzo to expand it to a novel to test if there was a market for a movie (gangster films at the time had lost a lot of box office appeal). Then when it became a best seller, they went ahead with the movie. There’s a lot of filler to get the book to novel length of about 400 pages, but the focus was always the 180 pages that would make up the script.
a funny one that i remember being better than the book was Who Framed Roger Rabbit vs Who Censored Roger Rabbit.
It feels weird to say which version of the story is better when the book and the movie tell almost completely different stories. This is the case with Roger Rabbit (though the story told in the movie is much better than that of the book) and also The Running Man (another Stephen King book.)
First Wives' Club! The cast was awesome and more shenanigans with Pinchot and Midler are pure fun!
Crichton is probably my favorite author. I started reading his stuff in middle school and have always been a huge fan, but if you didn't really connect with the 3 you listed here, I would genuinely recommend trying Sphere. If you've got it in you to give his writing another chance, I really believe that book is one of his absolute best!
I loved Congo, the book, and was very disappointed in the movie.
Jurassic World, the book is great.
Andromeda strain, was my first MC and was a fan forever.
Yes!!! Sphere is so good!
His earlier is much better than his later works. Certainly he was less anti science and Randian.
@@nealjroberts4050 Depends on what you’re considering early. Sphere was technically not considered a really early work for him but is one of his best for sure. Micro (which was most but not all his writing due to his death) was also really solid and fun. I enjoy all his work but to each their own.
@@connersowards79
I noticed a steady deterioration after Lost World. Suddenly every scientist not in a university, then later every scientist, was in it for money and power. Discoveries were either hoaxes or secret conspiracies. Etc etc.
The Lord of The Rings movies are good, but I absolutely love the books. The characters are so much deeper in the movie. You don't really get a sense of who the most of the supporting characters are in the movie. You really get to know Merry, Pippin, Legolas, Gimli and Treebeard in the books.
The treebeard section in the second book actually made me stop reading it. I remember trying to power through it for days and it was so painfully boring I just couldn’t. I should really start over again and just skip that section because I feel like I should finish the trilogy. Especially since I was able to breeze through the first book and the first half of the second book.
@@bonnieberry7368 I guess we have different taste - that's one of my favourite parts.
@@sortehuse There's two main things I think most people have forgotten about the production of LotR
1: Fantasy was an absolute non-starter unless it was a kid's tale like The Neverending Story. They didn't know until the box office reciepts for Fellowship came in if they would even be able to finish.
2: Because of this, getting funding was impossible. Before New Line, the closest offer PJ got was from Harvey Weinstein to make two films.
In a world of Game of Thrones and studios throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars on series only to cancel them after one season, it's hard to remember what an absolute gamble it was for everyone involved for LotR
@@LordSluggo The movies are very good and they was revolutionary when they where made, but don't forget that so where the books. They brought fantasy into the mainstream and had deep a detailed would that defined what the genre would become.
The Forrest Gump book was wild in a bad way. Check it out if you feel like regretting something.
Yep. Zemeckis and team deserve a special achievement award for the redemption they gave that story.
@@oscardiggs246 Exactly, In the book Forest is SUCH an unlikeable dick.
There's a Lost in Adaptation episode about it....I was half convinced that it was a troll video when he talked about the book plot
Seriously one of the worst books I’ve ever read. I’m shocked they pulled that movie from the book. And Gump & Co. is worse in a completely different way.
It was a turd of a book, literally.
Rammel, you magnificent bastard! I watched your vid!
Not knowing whether you covered it in the last video OR this one,I'm going to throw out the first thing that popped into my head: Hannibal. The film hasn't aged well in the eyes of the public,but I promise that the book is far worse.
David Cronenberg's adaptation of William S. Burroughs Naked Lunch is in my opinion the greatest adaptation ever made. The way they fuse themes and visual imagery from the book with a semi-biographical story about how Burroughs wrote the book in Tangiers is masterful. To me it still is Cronenbergs best work but unfortunately one of his lesser known ones.
I agree. Infusing a biographical skeleton into the screenplay gave the movie a structure that the junkie ramblings of the book sorely lacked.
Plus, the movie has that incredible score. Howard Shore and Ormette Coleman!
@@anthonyleecollins9319 Yeah, it works so great to enhance the unsettling mood.
I don’t think anyone mentioned Angel Heart? Much better than the novel Falling Angel it was based on. The idea of moving the plot from NYC to Louisiana was genius.
The Jim Caviezel version of Count of Monte Cristo is such a great take on the original book.
What? It destroys it!
It's not better than the book at all. And I hate the idea that Albert, who was born a few years after his arrest, is his son in the movie.
That version is a lot of fun, no matter what. It's just a movie after all.
Hollywood happy ending flick. No thanks. The Count belongs with Haydee. But i did like Luis Guzman's character was fun though.
I absolutly loved the three LOTR movies. They writers, director and cast all were wonderful and did a fantastic job. Better than the book, though? Sorry, but no.
I'm an absolute Tolkien fanatic, though. I've read LOTR close to 30 times. I've got multiple copies of the Hobbit, LOTR, and Silmarillion. I've got copies of every book Christopher edited of his father's work, and a half dozen different books analyzing everything Tolkien ever wrote. 😁
The movies are great, but even the extended editions don't have enough time to include everything. I remember being disappointed in the theater watching the first movie and entire first half of Fellowship of the ring book was condensed into about 45 minutes of the film. There was so much missing.
Objectively, it made sense to skip, but I still remember the disappointment.
I agree and I have recently read The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings borrowing my father's very old translated copies. I also saw the movies as a child but it was not the movies that made me read the books nor the various video games i've played, it was instead the work of a single band that finally coninced me: Blind Guardian with their best album Nightfall In Middle Earth. I have a Nightfall In Middle Earth shirt which I adore since it combines two of my greatest interests: metal music and fantasy books. There is a lot of bands and good songs that are inspired by Tolkien's works and the metal scene wouldn't be anywhere without his amazing books.
Also, I have to mention that my grandfather read Jaws the book. He really thought it would make such a great movie. He unfortunately got cancer and passed away before getting a chance to see Jaws in theaters. But I remember that was one thing he was happy about before he died. He was glad to hear Hollywood was making it into a movie. I know he would have loved the finished film.
It took me several tries to read the Lord of the Rings, but once. I did, I read the book more than twenty times so far.
I totally understand why people like the movie adaptation of The Shining more - it's one of the most well-crafted movies, Kubrick was just a genius. In terms of filmmaking this is peak. But in terms of writing I must agree that I do like the book more. It's much more grounded and Jack's character arc in the book is just heart-wrenching while in the movie he felt a bit more "house changed him" (which is not false but completely different vibe). I also think it would be really hard to adapt it as it is in the book (too much internal monologues/psychosis), so Kubrick just got the atmosphere and crafted a well-made horror out of it
The only thing about Jurassic Park that I preferred, movie vs bookcase, was having the Rex fight the raptors. Apart from that, the book had a lot more Dinosaur stuff.
Jurassic Park is an example of a good movie but awful adaptation of the book!
I personally love Michael Crichton. I will say that I felt that Congo and The Lost World were two of his weakest works. I typically recommend Andromodea Strain, Jurassic Park, or Timeline first.
The Shining really is a great movie. I haven't read the book since high school (over 20 years) but I do remember it being apples and oranges. Both great, but the book does have better character development.
I think you’d appreciate LotR more as an adult. I had the same experience where I struggled through the books in my early teens as the movies were coming out and DNFed them. But then reading it as an adult LotR is my absolute favorite book of all time. I re-read it regularly, and yes, as phenomenal as the movies are and as much as I love them, the book is better. I remember his descriptions of landscapes and settings going on for ages and being very dry, but then as an adult, I actually found that his descriptions were concise and fantastic at setting the tone and mood. Turns out Tolkien is a great horror writer! Some of those scenes with the Nazgûl were properly haunting. The only part I think people might struggle with is how long it takes to get to Rivendell and Tom Bombadil, but honestly I think some of the best humor is in Frodo preparing to leave the Shire (at one point he’s surprised Merry and Pippin knew he was leaving and they’re like “yeah, you kept gazing fondly over the hills and muttering to yourself how much you would miss them, so you weren’t exactly cryptic” 😂) and by the time Tom shows up, you’ve been so spooked by Nazgûl, wights, and evil trees that it’s a relief to find Tom and Goldberry’s sanctuary in the woods. Seriously, the book is better than you remember, so try one more time as an adult and see if you like it better. It’s still not for everyone, though.
I read it at 14 and I love it since then, but I was already into fantasy and long books and mithology at the time, so I think I 'm an exception. The only thing I found difficult in reading LOTR was all the poetry. So the first time I skipped it totally and it worked!
Ihave read Lord of the Rings every year since about 1968, actually the first novel I ever read. I have seen the movies numerous times and really enjoyed them. I think Peter Jackson did a good job even though he changed or added numerous elements but to whittle it down to 3 movies and hold the audiences attention it was necessary. He maintained the themes and mood of the books very well. You almost need to look at both as masterpieces that tell the same story from different points of view. The book though was better.
So do you remember the old HB cartoons? I do. Those were so bad they were good. I especially loved where they animation style changes at the end of Return of the King.
@@deanaarmstrong3976 I just downloaded and watched the old animated Hobbit and LOTR movies this summer. I think The Hobbit one is quite good, but the LOTR and RotK ones are terrible.
LOTR the books have the best world building in cultural history, but not the best story telling. The movies fix nearly everything.
The movies are great and I love them, but I really dislike how they treated the character of Faramir. The movies really did a number on him. I also didn't really like how Cate Blanchett ended the Galadriel's mirror scene. She sounds kind of surprised when she says "I pass the test". In my mind when I read the book, she sounds resolute when she says it. She makes the decision to not give into the temptation of the Ring. The movie plays it as if the decision comes from somewhere outside of herself.
Jurassic Park is good popcorn, but very silly. Great acting and visuals.
As a writer, Crichton's best character is always Science. He's not someone you read for characters work.
I rate book and movie as even for comparative strengths and flaws
Have you noticed in his later books Science is embittered and twisted, a Frankenstein in both senses? It got pretty tiresome. I think I stopped at Next when the misrepresentation became too much.
@@nealjroberts4050 you should read Prey, and even Pirate Latitudes.
@@nealjroberts4050 Or maybe, AS a scientist, he was developing an increasingly accurate perception of science running up against its practical limitations (a modern development that was accurately predicted by Nietzsche, among others).
@@terencemccormick8178
Then it's even worse as he should know better than to blame science for not saying what he wants it to say.
@@nealjroberts4050 I don't think I made it that far. I can't remember finishing one after Prey.
Dragon Teeth was good, breezy historical fiction though.
I was about 112 when I read LOTR and The Hobbit novels and I loved them both. It was over a decade late when I saw the movies and I loved them. Were they a perfect adaptation? No but they are the best adaptation we will ever get.
Everyone gets to the end of The Mist and is just awestruck and in shock and it's just so crazy. I saw it and thought it was anticlimactic and kind of stupid.
I hated the ending. It didn't shock me. It just annoyed me.
The movie has a happy ending: humanity clearly survives, courtesy of the U.S. Army. (Too bad about the protagonist). The King story has an ambiguous ending, the survival of humanity an open question. King was stupid to shill for the movie.
Great video, like the first.
Another really good one is V For Vendetta, though that's not to say the source material is bad. Quite the opposite, it's really good. But the movie strays from the source material, either through changes or flat out omissions, it's terrific on its own merits. The movie isn't quite "In name only," but in some ways, it flirts with that. I will say the ending for the graphic novel is superior in its ambiguity, where the movie is all "Yay, we beat the big bads, we're all free now, yay!" Still, both are great, based on their own unique merits. I'd love to see another of these kind of lists from you.
I usually get slammed for saying I dont like Kubrick films. But I dont. So there. 😊
Ditto. I see his skill, but aside from Full Metal Jacket, I don’t enjoy his movies at all. And FMJ is in the “I never want to watch it again” category. It was good to see once.
There are plenty of authors , directors, and musicians for me in the “skilled but not to my taste” pile. Feeling that way is socially acceptable in music, mostly tolerated among readers, and heresy among cinephiles 😅.
There’s about 20 minutes of eyes wide shut I really enjoy
I don’t either for the most part. Shining is pretty good as is the first half of Full Metal Jacket but other than that I’m just not into his movies.
I mean, it's pretty crazy to _slam_ someone for what they like (or don't) I think. We're all just swapping opinions at the end of the day :).
To me "2001: A Space Odyssey" is one of those rare movies that _actually_ changed cinema and basically a masterpiece. But he had some complete misses for me too. So it goes :).
I liked 2001. Sort of. When I saw the movie in the theater about a year after release, the sound glitched out for about ten minutes and we all presumed it was the movie. Only long after when I saw the movie again did I realize it was the sound system malfunction-- not Kubrick.
For me, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is much better than the book.
It's better paced, has one of the best versions of Voldemort, the acting is elevated from the first movie.
Having Hermione be the one to explain Mudbloods to Harry is a heartbreaking scene.
Thank you for the follow up video, sir 👏🏾
@@SteveOnTheEastCoast thank you
LOTR's lure is in the world building.
It's the same way people like me would have said the GOT series were better than the books if they had stopped at season 5.
Because if you read the books AFTER watching the first 3 seasons, you'd also struggle to get through them.
If you try to watch GOT after reading the books you can't get past the first season, most mis-cast adaptation ever.
Stephen King himself said that the movie ending of the Mist was better than the book. In terms of The Princess Bride, the book and the screenplay were written by the same person and William Golding is actually better known for screenwriting which probably is the reason that the film was better. Interestingly, all the best Stephen King film adaptations seem to come from Frank Darabont, apart from The Green Mile
The Green Mile is another one I'd put as movie better than the book, if only just. The acting was just soooo good.
I first read the Lord of the Rings when I was 12 (1989) and read it again once a year for maybe 10 years. And I have to say... The movies are indeed better. Among fantasy fans, many (mostly the oldest ones) find my opinion to be an heresy, but here it is : Tolkien was an amazing worldbuilder, but, as a writer, his writing is indeed very dry, imo. He was an university professor, and his books have that "scholarly" quality to them.
Lord of the Rings: I - love - the movies, I have watched them four times at least (which is quite an achievement for me), but the books are better, deeper and more meaningful on so many levels it is not comparable.
I love your T-shirt!
I'm a big fan of Ray Bradbury.
Mee too
My go to answer to this question is always Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The book gets a bit muddled. The movie is perfect.
For me, that is an example of equally good. They are also very different.
Michael Crichton wrote screenplays in novel form. Every book he wrote was with a movie deal in mind. Don't know if he ever admitted that but having read a ton of his books, that is a hill I will die on.
The Princess Bride (book) is better than the movie. They are very similar, both being written by the same person, but the book reads like an extended version of the movie, with the movie being a theatrical cut.
They really could be considered on par. But there are three things that put the book above the film. First, we get to see Inigo's childhood. So, when he goes after the 6 fingered man - we actually saw his father be killed and know that Inigo saw it first hand. Second, we get to see Fezzik's childhood as well, and third: The Zoo of Death!
Agreed. I think this is a case of if you saw the movie first the book is not exactly what you’re expecting.
However, the humor in the book is more sophisticated and less cartoony and each character has an amazing backstory that’s mostly lost in the film. The Man in Black is genuinely mysterious and way more badass and his journey to become the Dread Pirate Roberts is whittled down to a line in the movie. There’s so much missing in the film that I wish they would turn this into a miniseries.
It's one of those fairly rare occasions where the movie is a really great _adaptation_ BUT the book is still better (IMO) partly _because_ it's a book. There are just some stories that work better when the teller is effectively inside your head I think.
Im subbed now that video was the first video the algorithm ever send me by you despite watching similar in depth movie review channels in the past 6 to 8 years
Jaws is not worth reading, even Steven Spielberg has said that the Shark is more likeable than the characters in the book. And I agree
I hadn’t heard that quote, but it’s right. The book might be the least favorite book I’ve ever read.
@@dennislecompte6380 its on imdb, Jaws Trivia
I am so surprised that, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, wasn't even mentioned. To me it is the quintessential, the movie is better than the book. Heck, the author liked the movie so much more than his own book that in the follow up book to the series he made the movie cannon as opposed to the book he had written.
The 40 yr old checklist:
Fight Club
Jurassic Park --> Congo pipeline
Lord of the Rings movies
Having just turned 40, I can relate to all of this dude. The further the video went I was like "yeah me too, man". 😂
We he listed off the pipeline I thought "wow that is the exact same order I read and also the only three."
I’d be interested in Rammels opinion on Doctor Sleep book. I scanned his vids and didn’t notice anything Shining is one of my favs and I loved how Dr. Sleep fit with it and Kings universe
Jurassic Park like I said on the other video I think the characters make a lot more sense in the book which made the story overall work better for me (aka the master hunter guy has survival skills and the Hammond is old and doesn't get off the island). The characters felt more fleshed out in the movie... and like I said in the other comment... the movie had real dinosaurs...
Jaws the story is fine in the book, but the characters were so unlikable to me in that. It's less about the shark (similar to the movie) and more about the interpersonal relationships so when ALL of the characters aside from Chief are shitty it plays a lot worse for me. If you haven't seen Jaws in awhile you should revisit it! As a kid I remembered it and loved it for all the shark scenes. When I rewatched it later in life expecting to love it more ironically cause the shark looks so fake, my brain was much more media literate and realized how wonderfully it was shot and written and how great the characters are in the movie.
I WAS the target audience for Star Dust, and I was just as underwhelmed.
Never read the book, though.
Nah. Jurassic Park's movie is nowhere near as good as the book. It's a cool movie but the book was AWESOME! The book was dark and terrifying. The movie is just a theme park ride.
Jeff Goldblum as Ian Malcolm might be one of the best castings ever.
The book is better, but his portrayal convinced the author to bring him back from the dead and make his character the MC of the sequel.
If I could hand you a little cash for that one I'd do it. That was a brilliant, concise contrast.
@@ecnalreleam The book reads too much like a screenplay. Based on the two Crichton books I read that seems to be how he wrote.
@@tiffanysandmeier4753 Oh he's DEFINITELY the best casting
@@michaelme1548 That's reasonable
I love Crichton, and I think you should give him another chance. Prey, Eaters of the Dead, Airframe, and Pirate Latitudes are all great.
I get why people chose Fight Club, but I think if the movie is better it's only barely, and the work that the book puts in is at a level comparable. So much of what makes the movie iconic, outside of the camera moves and the actors chosen, is directly IN the book. It's actually an incredibly accurate adaptation of the book and Palahniuk's writing style.
The themes of each story are nearly the same all the way through.
The biggest difference between the two is the very last page, and that Palahniuk was a bit more nihilistic while Fincher actually throws in hints of hope throughout.
What Fincher did was beyond what anybody could ask for an accurate adaptation. Palahniuk's words, and atmosphere are all over that thing.
I think it would be difficult for me to say which is better, but maybe for the slight hopefulness, Fincher edges out on top, but genuinely they feel equal to me.
I gave full marks to both. But what I think makes the movie slightly better is that it fleshes out Marla more.
2 things... 1) I didn't vote, but probably should have (I would have said Stand By Me) and 2) Though I agree with you regarding The Shining, I love that the book version of Doctor Sleep is only a sequel to the book version of The Shining, and the movie version of Doctor Sleep is only a sequel to the movie version of The Shining
Fight Club book is great, and a really fast (and short) read, but the last five minutes of the movie alone until the Pixies pipe up while the buildings explode would have been enough to elevate the movie for me, even if the rest had been meh
The worst part of the movie by far??
I don't know which is better both are great imo. The movie is such a classic despite rightwingers somehow co-opting it.
@j.f.fisher5318
Both are great, despite leftwingers somehow adopting it.
I agree with LOTR . I've made 3 attempts to get through the 1st book. Can't do it.
I'm surprised Die Hard isn't on the list. If there's a future list, let this be my entry.
Subbed.
# 7 - "The Shining" - Stanley Kubrick's "adaptation" was so bad, Stephen King penned and produced a three-part mini-series for TV to rectify it. I'd bet most people who thought Kubrick's film was abysmal wouldn't have a problem if the film were titled, "The Overlook". But Kubrick missed the mark on this one.
Agreed.
The miniseries was pretty weak, and it demonstrated two things:
1. Kubrick's version was still close enough to the book to make the remake feel completely redundant.
2. An ax is significantly scarier than a croquet mallet.
It gets points for giving Jack a much better character arc than "guy who clearly wants to kill his family to guy who tries to kill his family," but for all the notable improvements in characterization, it came with serious detriments to the mood and tension. The Stephen King TV adaptations of the 90s were never all that scary, but this one was particularly terrorless (unless you're horrified by just how bad the CGI looked).
Then Doctor Sleep came along and showed that you can make a movie as eerie as The Shining without committing character assassination in the process.
Except, the mini series was bad
King’s miniseries with the guy from Wings was unwatchable.
I agree 100% about "The Shining." I was horribly disappointed walking out of the theater. Thanks for the video!
I love The Princess Bride, the movie… but I do think the book is better. You should definitely read it and judge for yourself.
Except for the fight between Inigo and Westley, I'll agree with you. I got lost in the weeds in the fight in the book.
Anyone else think The Shining novel isn't scary but the movie actually is?
Also, I've never met anyone who read the book who knew the twist--of which King is so proud--until they saw the ABC special or read the sequel.
Interesting the body, the mist and the Shawshank redemption are all in a short story compilation of Stephen King
@@nathanielvalla6142 Different Seasons unless I am mistaken...
The Body and Shawshank are coupled with Apt Pupil and The Breathing Method in the Different Seasons collection of novellas. The Mist was in the short story collection Skeleton Crew. I've read Different Seasons and own a copy of Skeleton Crew but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
I'd be curious to see you (forgive me if you already have, I'm relatively new to discovering this channel!) do a deep dive on the Dragon Tattoo books & films. I've never read the books, I was underwhelmed by the original Swedish language films, but Loved David Fincher's English language adaptation. For simplicity, let's just stick to the first title in the series for each.
since I haven't read them, I don't have any reference to the source material when watching the films. I'd be interested to hear a proper comparison between the book and both films
The Swedish films are a quite good adaptation. The Fincher film it isn't. But I recommend to try at least the first book. The characters are fantastic, in my opinion
The people who say LotR is better as a movie...we're never getting a literary renaissance
I don't read fiction personally. I have a hard time getting into books like that. I am a visual and sound guy. I have read a few fiction books and just have a hard time connecting emotionally to the characters because I can't see them. Same reason I don't feel much when reading about real-life tragedies.
I would say though that the movies had better pacing, but Frodo’s story doesn’t translate to movies, therefore I can’t really say one is better than the other.
I don't really remember the movies much but I did recently read all of the books in chronological order for Middle Earth so I went: The Silmarillion - The Hobbit - The Lord Of The Rings. I think the books and the movies both do what they are trying to do well but I will always prefer the books. I also have read The Adventures Of Tom Bombadill and unlike the other books which were borrowed from my father's collection this book is mine, it was a farewell gift from someone at my internship because he himself is a Tolkien fan and he had asked me if my father owned that book. Another farewell gift I have gotten from that internship which is also Tolkien related in some way is my Nightfall In Middle Earth shirt from the band Blind Guardian. The art depicts a moment from the story of Beren and Lúthien, it is Morgoth on his throne while Lúthien dances him to sleep. It was that particular album that got me to pick up The Silmarillion and it is my favourite Blind Guardian album for good reason, I think it is the best adaptation for at least a part of The Silmarillion.
@@alexdoorn234I love that album, too. How I would love to see a good adaptation of the story of Beren and Luthien in a movie! I don't know if it would be possible because it is very difficult to adapt and I fear it would be a horrible movie. Maybe it's better not to try
@@amarantatedeschi4786 At least we have a few good songs about that story, right? I am content with the songs being our only adaptation.
Another excellent video! I wish my suggestion had shown up (Dune movie is better than the book), but I do understand that not all of them are gonna make the top 10 list. But, another great video. Thanks for taking the time to make it!
People disliking "The Shining" because of the differences with the book are doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Has ANYBODY seen the video of Shelley Duvall babbling? I believe that was the DIRECT result of Stanley Kubrick's abuse of her during the filming of that movie. The only thing worse are so-called "fans" dismissing Kubrick's treatment of her and her suffering.
To be fair, she has said it wasn't as bad. I think evidence kinda refutes that, but that's what she's said.
Yeah but it was still a Great film. That’s the important thing to remember
William Goldman wrote both the novel and the script of The Princess Bride and he knew a lot about how movies work ( Butch Cassidy, All The President's Men) As well as the perfect cast, those who prefer the movie may be responding more than to reading it. The kissing is better too.
Michael Crichton wrote books in order to sell the movie rights. Those kinds of books can be entertaining but will never be very deep.
That’s a good insight.
I disagree with respect to Jurassic Park. That book had so much depth. It is arguable that the subject concerned the complexity and instability of modern digital systems rather than dinosaurs.
@@WatchMaga Then we disagree. That was the first Michael Crichton book I read. It seems like he read a few articles and wrote a book. It wasn’t very deep. It could have been but it always seemed palatability was more important to Crichton than depth. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It depends on what you want.
I highly recommend taking a couple of hours and watch Jaws again. It easily makes my top 5 favourite movies of all time. What makes this movie so great is the relationship of the 3 main characters in the second half of the movie. I have read the book, and I can definitely say, if you never read it in your life, you're not missing anything. I decided to read the book for an assignment in high school because I thought it would be interesting to make a comparison, and it was just awful (IMO). BUT, I can see why they thought it would make a good movie back in the 70s.
If you think The Godfather is JUST a mob movie, I have to question your taste and intelligence.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned "Matilda" by Roald Dhal.
...unless I mentioned it in the previous video...
To quote Sir Terry Pratchett,
"Any magical Kingdom, all of who's troubles can be resolved by the destruction of one ring, isn't much of a magical kingdom!"
That should feed the haters and fanatics lol
If Sir Terry had actually read the book, he would have realized that
1. The destruction of the Ring did not by any means end the troubles of any of the parties. It took many years and battles afterwards to set things right, and for Frodo it was only resolved when he left Middle Earth entirely.
2. Gondor was not a magical kingdom. At best it was magic-adjacent, since its people had a history of association with elves. For the actual magical kingdoms, Rivendell and Lothlorien, the destruction of the Ring meant the end of their existence, which is hardly an example of problem-solving.
@@llanitedave he did read it, It was one of his favorite books growing up!
@@davidclarke7122 Then I would suspect that quote of his is seriously taken out of context.
@@llanitedave If you read Sir Terry's books you would discover what he meant by the quote!
Sir Terry also said (paraphrasing) that Lord of the Rings is to fantasy as Mt Fuji is to Japanese landscapes: it is either obvious from its presence or its absence, meaning that every Western fantasy story since LOTR is either informed by Tolkien and this sharing his shadow or is doing its damnedest to be something clearly other, thus being on the sunny side of the mountain. The mountain is there either way.
I'd throw in LA Confidential by Ellroy.
My mother who is a super seasoned reader, who's read a book a fortnight for the last 40 years. Had a torrid time. It's a HARD book to follow and keep track of the moving parts.
BUT it's super rewarding. It rewards you for paying attention.
And so does the film. The film is a masterpiece.
Stephen King's the greatest.
Thanks for plowing through those comments! It's such an overlooked movie that I didn't see anyone mention it in the thread of your previous vid, but Logan's Run is worthy. The book's end premise is kinda pointless.
I was in my late 40s when I read the Hobbit and the LOTR books, and it was just a dry and difficult to navigate as it probably was to you reading it as a child. They are masterworks of literature, and I won't say the movies are BETTER, but I will say they are more ENTERTAINING. And still probably get lambasted for it.
Oh, and I strongly recommend reading The Princess Bride. You will love it. Especially if you loved the movie as a child, you will appreciate the relative sophistication of the book as an adult. There is a lot more going on (including a frame story featuring a fictionalized version of the author Bill Goldman) but the movie is still very faithful to the core story. I love them both.
When reading a Michael Crichton work, I feel like I am reading a film treatment.
He writes for film, sells them as books. IMHO
Just want to add "Requiem for a Dream" and "A Clockwork Orange" if there is ever a part 2
The Firm was a movie I thought had an infinitely better ending than the book. The story involves a lawyer (Tom Cruise) getting involved with a mafia run law firm and he's trying to figure out a way out that will let him keep practicing law and not having to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life.
The book ends with him stealing a bunch of money, sending evidence to the police, and going into hiding... so he achieved none of his stated objectives and the book plays it off as a slam dunk victory. The movie let's him take down the law firm without passing off the mafia as he exposed the firm ripping them off. He kept his license and is safe.
Speaking of high fantasy, have you read the Chronicles of Amber? If so I'm curious what your opinion is.
I had a similar experience with LotR - I first read it in my early teens (before even the fantastic animated movie came out) and it was such a struggle... Tom Bombadil dragged on and on...
I went back and re-read it in my 20s and it just flowed... I dedicated far more time to it in each sitting, and I got through it in less than a month - the experience was SO MUCH better.
Anyway... 30 years on and I'm still upset they never finished the animated version!!
Just my personal opinion, but I believe Jurassic Park being on this list is sacrilege.
Never read Princess Bride but I can see how a book about someone reading a book might be less interesting than a movie about someone reading a book.
That part is unique to the film. It's kind of ingenious how the story of the book is simplified down to be a movie. But it would be like if the film were from the point of view of the kid, when he was grown up, wanting his son to read the book that his Grandfather read to him when he was sick. But then, when he buys a copy, his son hates it. So, he re-reads the book as an adult and realizes that the book that his Grandfather read him isn't actually the book at all. That his Grandfather was making up the story (as he went) and it was just a retelling of the book done much better. Then, he commissions his Grandfather's version of the book to be printed instead because he wants other people to read what the book that got him into reading even though that book doesn't exist and never has. All that with notes to his publisher about why they can't make certain changes to the book while definitely making other changes is why THE BOOK IS ACTUALLY BETTER.
@@jaustill237 Okay.
Anyone seen the show the mist? I'm wondering how the show wraps everything upup?! I'm not asking for any spoilers !! 🤔😇🤗
If the ABC version of the Shining was released in 1980, Stephen King's rep as a master of horror wouldn't have endured for over three more decades.
i had the same problem reading lofr as a teenager. tried to read the books when the movies came out. even, as you did, stopped reading them in the middle of book two. now as an full grown adult i started to read them again. this time i finished them. and man was it a blast. give the books a new try and i will ensure you you'll like them
4:16 I have read "The Princess Bride" and seen the movie naturally, the movie takes stuff right from the book, and cuts out other stuff, I would have to agree, but I can't remember if the book came out after the movie or not. Idk why I think it would, it is a satire on fairy tales and epic fantasy stories.
As for a movie better than the book? Easy, "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs" takes the crown for me. There's honestly almost zero overlap between the stories except for the most basic of the concepts which is: a place that rains food, but then the food starts to get too big, so they have to leave or risk being crushed by the food. Everything else is different, but it's fine for me bc the OG is a kids book, and the movie really fleshes things out into a full out story
The bad series adaptation of the Shining scared me more as a child more than the Kubric version 😂
For Michael Crichton, I loved his book Timeline. The movie adaptation was ok, entertaining, but nowhere near as good as the book which I had read previously.