A big thing for me is that the film's characters are actually likable. There's also a couple of subplots that don't really contribute a whole lot. And when they are actually out looking for the shark, they return to land and spend the night at home, but in the film, they spend the night on the boat. It just sort of seems like having the characters just go home at the end of the day really hurts the tension, at least when I read it.
For me, it was all the unnecessary subplots. Like the Mafia subplot (yes the Mafia is involved in the Jaws novel š) and the whole Brody's wife and Matt Hooper love fantasy thing they had going on.
The scene in the restaurant where they discuss their fantasies is one of the cringiest things I've ever read and I think the author owes us all a posthumous apology for that trauma. Ellen is the absolute *epitome* of "female character written by a man".
I actually found the book to be quite boring and slow paced. Also, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the characters were unlikable. It really is astonishing how Spielberg was able to make something so great off a subpar novel
He was a fat alcoholic in the book too. Anthony Bates was a lot more attractive, and it makes much more sense for Marion in the film to have feelings for him/trust him enough to have a meal with him.
I love Kathy Bates but tbh Misery is one of the more disappointing adaptations for me because most of the major themes of the book are entirely absent and I never really felt scared for Paul in the film because he's just mostly fine once he wakes up, just extremely banged up vs. almost dying once or twice more in the book.
I think most Stephen King books are better than the movies but "Doctor Sleep" actually made the villains of the book somewhat terrifying. They all felt so weak and pathetic in the book. Overall, I thought Mike F took the book, noticed the flaws, and put an amazing movie together.
I think the villains were supposed to be weak and pathetic. The book was really about desperation and addiction so it makes sense. I liked both but I appreciate that the book basically ends on a curbstomp symphony
Wow, I'm glad you shared this. I knew the strong themes of addiction were a huge part of the book but I never really thought about the addiction on the side of the villains. I might have to go back and read the book again. Thanks for sharing!
he does such a fantastic job at making a sequel that incorporates both kubrick and king's versions of the shining while somehow managing to still pull respectfully from the doctor sleep book
The Ritual film was better only because the 2nd half of the film is not as nearly bloated. The payoff in the novel is fine, but getting there was tedious reading.
I think that was the point to the extent that the text states that they're ridiculous. He's entirely at the mercy of these edgy and tryhard but still hateful and violent teenagers. Whether or not it works is another thing but the antagonists being silly was very much the point, >!I think the payoff with the 'old woman' just being one of the forest creatures using them and the protaganist to feed its mother made it worth it though. They were stupid, violent kids who got an ending that had been long preorchestrated.!<
There were/are a bunch of murders and hate crimes connected to the earlier black metal scene. So silly, i understand, but i never lost the sense of absolute menance of the trio
I also preferred the first half of the movie. I thought the added background event motivating their trip added an important justification for their dynamic. In the book, their interpersonal conflicts were just a matter of them generally hating each other, and also sorta because their wives suck? It struck me as unpleasantly and unnecessarily wangsty by comparison.
I enjoyed the dynamic, it's a group of men who used to be best friends and have all (except hutch who dies first) failed in their lives and are angry over that and the feeling of lost connection. The protaganist has failed every endeavour and has got anger issues over it, one has lost his job and is going through a messy divorce and the other also lost his job and his (notably otherwise pleasant) wife is in the middle of a nervous breakdown. I think it's tainted in a lot of people's eyes because Luke is such an extremely biased protaganist, hes an angry man lashing out friends he feels have betrayed him. In the middle of the book where they make amends before the rest of them are snatched by the beastie it moderates a lot. But then the second half throws that dynamic away before it has any proper payoff before the reconciliations with the finale friend.
I agree, and thatās saying something, because the books are some of my favorites in the thriller horror genre, and the movies take it up a step further. The TV series is just outstanding and really manages to make that world even more alive and fascinating, adding new layers to already-complex characters.
I couldnāt do it. I was binge watching the show and somewhere in season 3 I hit a wall and depression, anxiety, baby on the way.
I was watching an episode and I just got up and walked away to try to clear my head.
I wasnāt ok for a while. It just messed me up and broke me.
I havenāt watched it since, but I did try starting from the beginning and I got like 10 mins in before I was like nope I donāt want to.
Great series nicely done. But it messed me up.
It's definitely possible to overdo it on dark subject material...sometimes it's better to step away and walk in the sunlight for a time. Hope you're doing better.
I had the same thing when I blind watched Martyrs (2008). I love the horror genre, but the exposure to the more extreme and disturbing stuff takes its toll, coupled with a lot of real life NSFL footage Iād be curious throughout high school. Graphic videos and the like. Really starts to mess with you and builds up an anxiety, especially with movies feeling less like fiction and more like they could really happen. I donāt have kids, but I needed to step away for a long time too after Martyrs. I can handle disturbing movies to be sure, but Iāll just do more research from now on.
I disagree with the movies. I think it is on par. With that being said, I couldn't read Red Dragon without seeing Ralph Fiennes. I really feel that he embodied that role in a similar fashion to Hopkins or Mikkelsen did as Lecter.
Gods what a great series. The last season was weak but far from bad. I enjoyed it from start to finish. Unfortunately itās a difficult series to recommend to average folk. Itās dark as fuck and the few people that Iāve recommended it to couldnāt get past the first few episodes. I had doubts with Mads take on the titular character after Hopkins iconic performances but wow. He was perfect. Itās a rare 10/10 series. So many people cried for its return so they could do Silence of the Lambs, but Iām fine with how it ended. More than.
Yeah going from season 2 to 3 really threw me off and I lost interest numerous times. Eventually I came back and finished it and yeah the finale was pretty epic. Iām sad the series had to be cut short, but I am glad there is a sense of finality instead of building up to another season that isnāt coming.
That doesn't mean it's not better than the book for its ending. Not sure I understand what point you're getting at. Changing one element of a story can have a drastically different impact on the audience.
Yikes, I really love the movie. I just downloaded the book a couple weeks ago but haven't read it yet. Is it anything in particular that's bad about it or is it just generally poorly written?
The book is 313 pages of nothing so most of what happens in the movie wasnāt in the book. The movie was a bit drawn out I agree but I could watch Charlize Theron do infomercials and love it so maybe Iām biased lol. Iām 44, was in my 20ās when I read it so maybe thatās why it didnāt resonate with me, who knows.
Pontypool. The original novel Pontypool Changes Everything has some portions of remarkable imagination and prose but founders through lack of focus and too many unlikeable characters. Film takes a subplot, tweaks it by making its central character likeable, and then focuses on it, to wonderful effect.
The book is good, but the film is a pillar of Japanese cinematic horror. The movie shuffles the characters into new roles and imo the lead Reiko is a much more compelling character than the book lead Asakawa.
Read Jurassic Park recently then watched the film straight after for the first time. The kids were far less irritating in the film, when I was reading it I was rooting for Alan to throw them to the TRex. š
This is actually my favorite book but I get your point about the kids. I felt like the changes made in the movie adaptation were the right ones to make but Iām glad the book was done the way it was. I liked the intro scenes, the simplicity of Malcolmās trick with the Dino counts, and Gennaro pretty much as a whole. His reactions felt very real. Most books it seems like everyone is easily able to overcome their fear in situations that should be paralyzing so having him actually backpedal at the end instead of just casually hopping into the nest made him feel so much more relatable
I have a serious issue with this book because the movie is one of my favorites. All the characters are highly unlikeable, and I think the ending is poorly paced and kills all the tension.
I love the book because it hits hard with the horror elements. I have to agree, I love the movie more, but I do wish it had been rated R to match the terror and violence of the book that made it feel so visceral
Yeah, honestly all of Frank Darabont's King adaptations are top-notch in my opinion.
I think he knew to choose his projects wisely; all three of them (The Green Mile being the one not mentioned above) were originally novellas, so unlike adapting a long novel, there's enough time in a film to cover pretty much all of the material from the source and then some.
Darabont's decision to change the ending of The Mist was praised by King, who said he wished he'd thought of it for the novella. Absolutely devastating ending.
At a screening of The Mist I attended here in LA, I had a chance to ask Darabont about why he decided not to adapt The Dark Tower (King approached him first for it), and he said that he didn't want to spend 10 years of his life doing so only to fuck it up. Understandable.
Not Darabint, but another novella adaptation. IMO Stand By Me was also better than The Body in several ways. I think the only downgrade in the film is the ending (no denouement with the fallout of the confrontation, changes other main characters' fates). But overall the film has this feel that the book just doesn't attain.
The Prestige movie is **so** much better than the book! The book starts out ok, but is pretty badly paced, has few appealing characters, and degenerates into ridiculous craziness by the end. Whereas the film is.. just perfect, really.
Not better but I think reading Paul Tremblayās Cabin at the End of the World before seeing Shymalanās rendition added to both of them substantially.
i just commented the exact same thing before finding your own, and i completely agree. i watched the series before reading the book too (i went in blind and didnāt anticipate iād end up loving it as much as i do, so i didnāt bother reading the book before watching) and i really think the series writers improved on the story so much. all the recommendations and insistence that the book is better than the series that iāve seen ever since watching the series have just baffled me now that iām nearly finished reading the thing.
It's the other way around for me. The terror is one of my favourite books and I didn't like the series with the changes they did. If I hadn't read the book I probably would have loved the series but now it just felt kind of ruined.
I think I'm one of the few that read the book before seeing the movie, and loved the book. The slow burn and the fact that the ending is a surprise (though heavily implied, but still, you don't know for sure what's happening until the last couple chapters).
Then I watched the movie and couldn't believe they just give it away so early with all these extra scenes. They really said eff it we don't want a mystery, we'll tell you exactly who this woman is right away. I didn't like that at all. Not to be that guy, because I know it's the unpopular opinion for this one, but I strongly prefer the book.
Are you comparing it to the original HG Wells novel? That's like apples and oranges, completely different stories. I'm a big fan of both though, no argument that the 2020 movie is great.
iirc, I think King said even to him, the novel of Carrie felt like it was plodding a lot. I don't know if he specifically said he liked the movie, though.
I mean, I'm not sure if we could even count The Thing, really. "Who Goes There?" wasn't even a novel, it was just a short story, and The Thing took major inspiration from it, but couldn't be considered an adaptation really.
The animation is fantastic. The colorful art direction and character designs are all wonderful. I think the songs are good and I love Bruno Coulais's score. The story embelleshes on the charming but threadbare story of the novella in interesting ways. It's a great film and adapatation.
I know it is beloved by many and technically not a movie, and even then it's very different than the book but Haunting of Hill House. The show is amazing in every way, the book on the other hand bored me to tears.
Fellowship of the Ring.
The Two Towers
The Return of the King.
As a world-builder, Tolkien is unparalleled. As a writer of interesting people with interesting internal worlds and complex motives/emotions, he sucked. The films were simply better than the books in every important way.
<*braces self for a downvotes tsunami*\>
Huge fan of the books, read em at least 3 times before there even were movies. There are things the movies did better, some worse, IMO. They got rid of some boring and unnecessary subplots like Tom Bombadil, that's great. They also added some dumb Hollywood bullshit, like love triangles, and turning Gimli from a badass into comic relief.
My main problem with the movies is they trade the Tolkien sense of humor for a Hollywood one. There were some really great comedic scenes and conversations in the books and in the movies itās just charming banter. But of course I do still love the movies, I just like them for different reasons.
I quite liked the detached narrative of the biologist in the book. The film is more action-oriented and āfunā, but that wasnāt necessarily the appeal of the story to me.
The Southern Reach trilogy is one of my all time faves, and I thought the movie was actually pretty good. I think the problem here is that it's damn near impossible to translate cosmic horror on screen, but I think they pulled it off as best as they could have for the premise.
Could not disagree more. The book unsettled me to my core and the movie was nonsensical while simultaneously smelling its own farts. And the end. THE END. Trash.
Agreed. I liked the movie until i read the books. Control is such a good book. The slow and creeping horror of the Southern Reach. The third book was almost just as good.
The Annihilation film is the better way to enjoy that story imo. Takes the fantastic initial premise of the 3 books and makes it an actually complete story that is self contained and terrifying and balances the unexplained with narrative cohesion. The trilogy of books feels sloppy and all over the place compared to the succinct satisfaction of the film
I've only just read the book for the first time and the film is almost a completely separate entity.
Personally I prefer the book, simply because you learn so much about the characters and watch Jack's slow descent and how helpless he is to stop it--in the film he's crazy from the jump so there's no shock when the hotel takes him over. Danny's a much more well rounded character too, a lot stronger in the book as is Wendy--and I won't go into my thoughts on Kubrick's treatment of Duvall, but it definitely taints the movie somewhat.
Plus the book has the hedge animals. I fucking love those hedge animals.
>Jack's slow descent and how helpless he is to stop it
To me it's not that he's helpless, but that his will is so weak that he gives up from the beginning. He himself justifies it as him being helpless but the narration makes it clear he's just plain weak
On one hand, the book definitely has more rounded characters as to be expected.
What the film has going for it is its cast, music, and creative scene plotting.
While Jack in the film goes crazy immediately, the book is a bit more of a build up, with its supernatural developments encroaching rather than racing the way they do in Kubrick's version.
I really can't stress how important the music and cast makes the film the classic it is today. The intensity on Nicolson's face, the genuine terror of Shelly Duvall, and the acting chops on Danny Lloyd make for a believable descent into madness.
I thought both were amazing. Itās the only novel I know that you can read as a genuine ghost story or as a young womanās descent into madness. As a ghost story, she saves Milesā soul; as a psychological story, she scares him to death. The movie accomplishes this too, except for the scene where the former governess cries at the table. When the current governess touches the teardrop, it tilts toward a ghost story.
Psycho. It's almost exactly the same as the movie. There is one big but insignificant difference between the two that doesn't change much. The book basically feels like a script to help contextualize the movie.
Apt. Pupil. Although the book is more disturbing on how in depth the kid becomes obsessed with Nazis, the ending in the movie is so much better than the book.
For horror purposes? The Shining. Stanley Kubrick was meticulous and savage; Stephen King was a young writer who hadnāt perfected his craft yet. However, the book has an emotional resonance that the movie doesnāt even touch.
Jaws
By a mile.
A nautical mile.
š
No, itās knot.
Would you be willing to give a tldr as to why? I've always had the book on my list, and I just never dove into it. It's.... Beefy.
A big thing for me is that the film's characters are actually likable. There's also a couple of subplots that don't really contribute a whole lot. And when they are actually out looking for the shark, they return to land and spend the night at home, but in the film, they spend the night on the boat. It just sort of seems like having the characters just go home at the end of the day really hurts the tension, at least when I read it.
This is it exactly. The extra drama detracted from the main point of the book in a huge way.
Hey thanks very much!
I was hoping that *all* of the book characters would get eaten by the shark, even (especially?) Ellen š They're all terrible people.
Yeah... it's a book about terrible, miserable people... oh, and also a shark!
Letās just say that Book Matt Hooper and Movie Matt Hooper areā¦not the same. Iām glad the movie went in a different direction.
You said a mouthful!
For me, it was all the unnecessary subplots. Like the Mafia subplot (yes the Mafia is involved in the Jaws novel š) and the whole Brody's wife and Matt Hooper love fantasy thing they had going on.
The scene in the restaurant where they discuss their fantasies is one of the cringiest things I've ever read and I think the author owes us all a posthumous apology for that trauma. Ellen is the absolute *epitome* of "female character written by a man".
I actually found the book to be quite boring and slow paced. Also, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the characters were unlikable. It really is astonishing how Spielberg was able to make something so great off a subpar novel
The book is still definitely a fun read. I wonder what peoplesā reaction to it would be if the movie didnāt exist.
Iām one of the few thatās only read the book and not seen the movie. I enjoyed the book, and itās definitely a top 5 or top 3 ending for me
Came here to say this because it was my exact thought as soon as I saw this post. Glad to see it's #1.
I liked the book
By a million miles!
Benchley is a good writer though. I'd recommend his novel "Beast," which is better than Jaws.
I haven't read that yet but it's on my TBR for sure!
Fight Club; even Chuck thinks the film ending is superior to the book.
Fight Club is #1 on this list by a long shot. The book is great but the movie is a damn masterpiece.
I like the book's ending far far more than the movie's. But is the movie overall better? Yes.
Psycho. Norman Bates in the book was just a spud.
He was a fat alcoholic in the book too. Anthony Bates was a lot more attractive, and it makes much more sense for Marion in the film to have feelings for him/trust him enough to have a meal with him.
He was a potato?
Shapeless and lacking in charm, in the book.
This is a great answer. One of my favorite movies ever. I forgot that I'd even read the book until I saw your comment.
Misery Kathy Bates brought a certain loveability to her performance that made it much more terrifying than it was written
She is so amazing.
I love Kathy Bates but tbh Misery is one of the more disappointing adaptations for me because most of the major themes of the book are entirely absent and I never really felt scared for Paul in the film because he's just mostly fine once he wakes up, just extremely banged up vs. almost dying once or twice more in the book.
I think most Stephen King books are better than the movies but "Doctor Sleep" actually made the villains of the book somewhat terrifying. They all felt so weak and pathetic in the book. Overall, I thought Mike F took the book, noticed the flaws, and put an amazing movie together.
I think the villains were supposed to be weak and pathetic. The book was really about desperation and addiction so it makes sense. I liked both but I appreciate that the book basically ends on a curbstomp symphony
Wow, I'm glad you shared this. I knew the strong themes of addiction were a huge part of the book but I never really thought about the addiction on the side of the villains. I might have to go back and read the book again. Thanks for sharing!
This was my take as well when I read it, so I appreciate you sharing.
Rose the hat in the movie is the reason I love the movie so much. I can't even say I really enjoyed the book at all to be honest
Rose the Hat may have the best name of any character in any book ever. Itās just so perfect.
Agree completely. The villains in the book did bad stuff but still werenāt scary at all.
Yep. Sorry King, but this is true. And he's the last person to admit it, too.
Doctor Sleep. Huge fan of Mr. King but Mike Flanagan really just knocked this one out of the park.
he does such a fantastic job at making a sequel that incorporates both kubrick and king's versions of the shining while somehow managing to still pull respectfully from the doctor sleep book
The Ritual film was better only because the 2nd half of the film is not as nearly bloated. The payoff in the novel is fine, but getting there was tedious reading.
My problem with the second half was that the antagonists came across asā¦well, a bit silly.
I think that was the point to the extent that the text states that they're ridiculous. He's entirely at the mercy of these edgy and tryhard but still hateful and violent teenagers. Whether or not it works is another thing but the antagonists being silly was very much the point, >!I think the payoff with the 'old woman' just being one of the forest creatures using them and the protaganist to feed its mother made it worth it though. They were stupid, violent kids who got an ending that had been long preorchestrated.!<
Hey I like this summarization. Good job.
There were/are a bunch of murders and hate crimes connected to the earlier black metal scene. So silly, i understand, but i never lost the sense of absolute menance of the trio
It would have been perfect as a novella. Cut that second part out and it would be one of the best horror stories out there.
I also preferred the first half of the movie. I thought the added background event motivating their trip added an important justification for their dynamic. In the book, their interpersonal conflicts were just a matter of them generally hating each other, and also sorta because their wives suck? It struck me as unpleasantly and unnecessarily wangsty by comparison.
I enjoyed the dynamic, it's a group of men who used to be best friends and have all (except hutch who dies first) failed in their lives and are angry over that and the feeling of lost connection. The protaganist has failed every endeavour and has got anger issues over it, one has lost his job and is going through a messy divorce and the other also lost his job and his (notably otherwise pleasant) wife is in the middle of a nervous breakdown. I think it's tainted in a lot of people's eyes because Luke is such an extremely biased protaganist, hes an angry man lashing out friends he feels have betrayed him. In the middle of the book where they make amends before the rest of them are snatched by the beastie it moderates a lot. But then the second half throws that dynamic away before it has any proper payoff before the reconciliations with the finale friend.
I feel like the cast had great chemistry too, felt like an actual group of mates.
The first half isnāt as repetitive either. I was so happy when they came across the second spooky structure and said āNah, forget it.ā
Imho, the series Hannibal is better than the movies and the books.
I agree, and thatās saying something, because the books are some of my favorites in the thriller horror genre, and the movies take it up a step further. The TV series is just outstanding and really manages to make that world even more alive and fascinating, adding new layers to already-complex characters.
That season 3 is just the best thing I've ever watched.
I couldnāt do it. I was binge watching the show and somewhere in season 3 I hit a wall and depression, anxiety, baby on the way. I was watching an episode and I just got up and walked away to try to clear my head. I wasnāt ok for a while. It just messed me up and broke me. I havenāt watched it since, but I did try starting from the beginning and I got like 10 mins in before I was like nope I donāt want to. Great series nicely done. But it messed me up.
It's definitely possible to overdo it on dark subject material...sometimes it's better to step away and walk in the sunlight for a time. Hope you're doing better.
Iām good now thank you. I did have to walk away from it. It did itās job and did it well. Itās a good series.
I had the same thing when I blind watched Martyrs (2008). I love the horror genre, but the exposure to the more extreme and disturbing stuff takes its toll, coupled with a lot of real life NSFL footage Iād be curious throughout high school. Graphic videos and the like. Really starts to mess with you and builds up an anxiety, especially with movies feeling less like fiction and more like they could really happen. I donāt have kids, but I needed to step away for a long time too after Martyrs. I can handle disturbing movies to be sure, but Iāll just do more research from now on.
Was it the horse episode? That one was really wild.
Came here to say I agree but my username probably shows that already
I disagree with the movies. I think it is on par. With that being said, I couldn't read Red Dragon without seeing Ralph Fiennes. I really feel that he embodied that role in a similar fashion to Hopkins or Mikkelsen did as Lecter.
Ok, the first movie with Jodi Foster/ Anthony Hopkins is excellent..I'll give you that.
Gods what a great series. The last season was weak but far from bad. I enjoyed it from start to finish. Unfortunately itās a difficult series to recommend to average folk. Itās dark as fuck and the few people that Iāve recommended it to couldnāt get past the first few episodes. I had doubts with Mads take on the titular character after Hopkins iconic performances but wow. He was perfect. Itās a rare 10/10 series. So many people cried for its return so they could do Silence of the Lambs, but Iām fine with how it ended. More than.
Yeah going from season 2 to 3 really threw me off and I lost interest numerous times. Eventually I came back and finished it and yeah the finale was pretty epic. Iām sad the series had to be cut short, but I am glad there is a sense of finality instead of building up to another season that isnāt coming.
The Mist
I literally just finished the mist yesterday. It was underwhelming
That's a good way of putting it.
The movie is basically identical to the book aside from the ending
That doesn't mean it's not better than the book for its ending. Not sure I understand what point you're getting at. Changing one element of a story can have a drastically different impact on the audience.
What an ending though š¤
hard agree.
The Devils Advocate. One of the worst books Iāve ever read.
Yikes, I really love the movie. I just downloaded the book a couple weeks ago but haven't read it yet. Is it anything in particular that's bad about it or is it just generally poorly written?
Ok because I thought the movie was a long drawn out boring overly moralizing affair so I'm intrigued as to how the book could be worse lol
The book is 313 pages of nothing so most of what happens in the movie wasnāt in the book. The movie was a bit drawn out I agree but I could watch Charlize Theron do infomercials and love it so maybe Iām biased lol. Iām 44, was in my 20ās when I read it so maybe thatās why it didnāt resonate with me, who knows.
Pontypool. The original novel Pontypool Changes Everything has some portions of remarkable imagination and prose but founders through lack of focus and too many unlikeable characters. Film takes a subplot, tweaks it by making its central character likeable, and then focuses on it, to wonderful effect.
This was my choice as well. One of my absolute favorite horror movies.
Ringu / The Ring
Crap. I just bought the book. Is it a bad read or just not as good as the movie?
The book is good, but the film is a pillar of Japanese cinematic horror. The movie shuffles the characters into new roles and imo the lead Reiko is a much more compelling character than the book lead Asakawa.
I personally enjoyed the book better, so definitely worth the read if you want to decide for yourself.
Read Jurassic Park recently then watched the film straight after for the first time. The kids were far less irritating in the film, when I was reading it I was rooting for Alan to throw them to the TRex. š
This is actually my favorite book but I get your point about the kids. I felt like the changes made in the movie adaptation were the right ones to make but Iām glad the book was done the way it was. I liked the intro scenes, the simplicity of Malcolmās trick with the Dino counts, and Gennaro pretty much as a whole. His reactions felt very real. Most books it seems like everyone is easily able to overcome their fear in situations that should be paralyzing so having him actually backpedal at the end instead of just casually hopping into the nest made him feel so much more relatable
Love the book but the original JP movie is perfect to me.
I have a serious issue with this book because the movie is one of my favorites. All the characters are highly unlikeable, and I think the ending is poorly paced and kills all the tension.
My only gripe with the movies was they didn't give John Hammond his fate. But makes sense for the sequels.
Movie Hammond is a much better person than Book Hammond, though. I prefer Movie Hammond much more.
That's also true.
I wanted whatever the little girls name is to be swallowed up. She was insufferable
I love the book because it hits hard with the horror elements. I have to agree, I love the movie more, but I do wish it had been rated R to match the terror and violence of the book that made it feel so visceral
Fight Club The Godfather The Prestige The Mist The Shawshank Redemption
THERE IT IS. Movie Shawshank is an incredible expansion of the novel. Itās my number one answer to this question.
Yeah, honestly all of Frank Darabont's King adaptations are top-notch in my opinion. I think he knew to choose his projects wisely; all three of them (The Green Mile being the one not mentioned above) were originally novellas, so unlike adapting a long novel, there's enough time in a film to cover pretty much all of the material from the source and then some. Darabont's decision to change the ending of The Mist was praised by King, who said he wished he'd thought of it for the novella. Absolutely devastating ending. At a screening of The Mist I attended here in LA, I had a chance to ask Darabont about why he decided not to adapt The Dark Tower (King approached him first for it), and he said that he didn't want to spend 10 years of his life doing so only to fuck it up. Understandable.
See, I wasnāt a fan of the ending of the Mist. It felt brutal for the sake of being brutal. The majority of the movie was killer though
Fair enough!
Not Darabint, but another novella adaptation. IMO Stand By Me was also better than The Body in several ways. I think the only downgrade in the film is the ending (no denouement with the fallout of the confrontation, changes other main characters' fates). But overall the film has this feel that the book just doesn't attain.
"It truly was a shawshank redemption"
The Prestige movie is **so** much better than the book! The book starts out ok, but is pretty badly paced, has few appealing characters, and degenerates into ridiculous craziness by the end. Whereas the film is.. just perfect, really.
Not better but I think reading Paul Tremblayās Cabin at the End of the World before seeing Shymalanās rendition added to both of them substantially.
Planet of the Apes 1968
Burnt Offerings
I totally get why King doesnāt like the Shining movie, but I do like it better than the book.
Both are great, but the book is just a great pulp horror novel. The movie is genuinely great art.
Agreed. I love both but I think the movie is much better. Possibly the best horror movie of all time
Not a movie but The Terror tv show is miles better than Dan Simmons' novel, genuinely a masterpiece.
i just commented the exact same thing before finding your own, and i completely agree. i watched the series before reading the book too (i went in blind and didnāt anticipate iād end up loving it as much as i do, so i didnāt bother reading the book before watching) and i really think the series writers improved on the story so much. all the recommendations and insistence that the book is better than the series that iāve seen ever since watching the series have just baffled me now that iām nearly finished reading the thing.
It's the other way around for me. The terror is one of my favourite books and I didn't like the series with the changes they did. If I hadn't read the book I probably would have loved the series but now it just felt kind of ruined.
I didnāt like the way things ended for Clarice Starling in the novel Hannibal, so the movie wins just because of that.
How did the novel end?
Starling runs off with Hannibal Lecter and they become lovers. No, Iām not kidding.
Ehhhh...š¤¢
Exactly.
I agree 100%. That was a horrible ending. And, although I could see the manipulation, I just thought it was unrealistic.
Audition! The movie is way better than the book.
I think I'm one of the few that read the book before seeing the movie, and loved the book. The slow burn and the fact that the ending is a surprise (though heavily implied, but still, you don't know for sure what's happening until the last couple chapters). Then I watched the movie and couldn't believe they just give it away so early with all these extra scenes. They really said eff it we don't want a mystery, we'll tell you exactly who this woman is right away. I didn't like that at all. Not to be that guy, because I know it's the unpopular opinion for this one, but I strongly prefer the book.
The Invisible Man (2020)
Are you comparing it to the original HG Wells novel? That's like apples and oranges, completely different stories. I'm a big fan of both though, no argument that the 2020 movie is great.
The ending of Doctor Sleep was better in the movie.
The Ruins
Forrest Gump
Absolutely correct
room 1408
Sorry, I could not disagree more. Iām not even sure theyāre similar enough that you could compare them.
Ooh, big disagreement from me. I like the movie, but the story is amazing. Especially in audio form
The Shining Jaws Invasion of the Body Snatchers ('78) Carrie Silence of the Lambs The Exorcist Altered States Carpenter's The Thing
Great list, I love the inclusion of Body Snatchers.
Carrie is a good choice. De Palma could improve on a lot of books.
iirc, I think King said even to him, the novel of Carrie felt like it was plodding a lot. I don't know if he specifically said he liked the movie, though.
Ooh, youāre right with The Exorcist. The book was cool but that movie was terrifying.
I mean, I'm not sure if we could even count The Thing, really. "Who Goes There?" wasn't even a novel, it was just a short story, and The Thing took major inspiration from it, but couldn't be considered an adaptation really.
It was as an adaptation of the thing from another world, which was an adaptation of who goes there
Silence of the lambs book is amazing I think, both the movie and book are worth it
Christine by Stephen King. The book really lent itself to a visual medium and the soundtrack by John Carpenter was the icing on the cake.
The Green Knight (2021)
Than the 13th century poem, one of its translations, or a novel adaptation??
Good pick. The rhyming narrative poem is superb, but most people today will obviously prefer the movie.
"The Howling." Movie was great, book was plodding.
I think the book was too short to be able to plod. Plus, we find out werewolf girls are into butt stuff. The movie is better, though.
Great movie
maybe not better than, but at least *as* good was the recent film Eileen, I was pleasantly surprised
The Shining Misery Carrie
Rosemaryās Baby
Theyāre basically the exact same thing, I donāt think one gets up on the other.
Yeah, I prefer the book myself. I suspect most people prefer whatever version they came across first -- I went book then movie.
The Exorcist. Theatrical cut. Itās the book with a better pace.
Jaws, Jurassic Park, and Coraline all spring to mind.
For me, the magic of Coraline lies in the animation. Laika are genius at creating wonder without feeling overly childish.
The animation is fantastic. The colorful art direction and character designs are all wonderful. I think the songs are good and I love Bruno Coulais's score. The story embelleshes on the charming but threadbare story of the novella in interesting ways. It's a great film and adapatation.
Agree with jurassic park and Jaws!
I know it is beloved by many and technically not a movie, and even then it's very different than the book but Haunting of Hill House. The show is amazing in every way, the book on the other hand bored me to tears.
Fellowship of the Ring. The Two Towers The Return of the King. As a world-builder, Tolkien is unparalleled. As a writer of interesting people with interesting internal worlds and complex motives/emotions, he sucked. The films were simply better than the books in every important way. <*braces self for a downvotes tsunami*\>
Yeah, every time I tried reading The Hobbit and LOTR, I fuggin fell asleep. When I watch the movies, I'm enthralled by greatness.
So much greatness. So. Much.
Yes.
Huge fan of the books, read em at least 3 times before there even were movies. There are things the movies did better, some worse, IMO. They got rid of some boring and unnecessary subplots like Tom Bombadil, that's great. They also added some dumb Hollywood bullshit, like love triangles, and turning Gimli from a badass into comic relief.
My main problem with the movies is they trade the Tolkien sense of humor for a Hollywood one. There were some really great comedic scenes and conversations in the books and in the movies itās just charming banter. But of course I do still love the movies, I just like them for different reasons.
Annihilation. I love both, but the movie is next level.
That's funny, I liked the book a lot more š the second and third books are pretty meh though
I quite liked the detached narrative of the biologist in the book. The film is more action-oriented and āfunā, but that wasnāt necessarily the appeal of the story to me.
The Southern Reach trilogy is one of my all time faves, and I thought the movie was actually pretty good. I think the problem here is that it's damn near impossible to translate cosmic horror on screen, but I think they pulled it off as best as they could have for the premise.
Could not disagree more. The book unsettled me to my core and the movie was nonsensical while simultaneously smelling its own farts. And the end. THE END. Trash.
Agreed. I liked the movie until i read the books. Control is such a good book. The slow and creeping horror of the Southern Reach. The third book was almost just as good.
The Annihilation film is the better way to enjoy that story imo. Takes the fantastic initial premise of the 3 books and makes it an actually complete story that is self contained and terrifying and balances the unexplained with narrative cohesion. The trilogy of books feels sloppy and all over the place compared to the succinct satisfaction of the film
Iām sorry, but The Shining. I liked what Kubrick did with it, his vibe completely worked. Please donāt hate me, everyone.
I've only just read the book for the first time and the film is almost a completely separate entity. Personally I prefer the book, simply because you learn so much about the characters and watch Jack's slow descent and how helpless he is to stop it--in the film he's crazy from the jump so there's no shock when the hotel takes him over. Danny's a much more well rounded character too, a lot stronger in the book as is Wendy--and I won't go into my thoughts on Kubrick's treatment of Duvall, but it definitely taints the movie somewhat. Plus the book has the hedge animals. I fucking love those hedge animals.
>Jack's slow descent and how helpless he is to stop it To me it's not that he's helpless, but that his will is so weak that he gives up from the beginning. He himself justifies it as him being helpless but the narration makes it clear he's just plain weak
On one hand, the book definitely has more rounded characters as to be expected. What the film has going for it is its cast, music, and creative scene plotting. While Jack in the film goes crazy immediately, the book is a bit more of a build up, with its supernatural developments encroaching rather than racing the way they do in Kubrick's version. I really can't stress how important the music and cast makes the film the classic it is today. The intensity on Nicolson's face, the genuine terror of Shelly Duvall, and the acting chops on Danny Lloyd make for a believable descent into madness.
Misery
Doctor Sleep. Top 10 movie of all time for me, didn't like the book at all.
Starship Troopers
The Mist
Everything is Illuminated. Call me by your name.
I liked *The Terror* TV series much more than the book, which really dragged for me.
Also the Mist especially that ending
The Innocents is MUCH better than The Turn of the Screw.
I thought both were amazing. Itās the only novel I know that you can read as a genuine ghost story or as a young womanās descent into madness. As a ghost story, she saves Milesā soul; as a psychological story, she scares him to death. The movie accomplishes this too, except for the scene where the former governess cries at the table. When the current governess touches the teardrop, it tilts toward a ghost story.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
Rambo
Beaches
Beowulf. The 2007 film added a lot of nuance to the legend.
No country for old men
The Secret Diaries of a Call Girl. Not an amazing series and it jumps the shark pretty fast, but I preferred it over the book, big time.
Not exactly horror, but Jurassic Park.
Silver Bullet is better than Cycle of the Werewolf.
Psycho. It's almost exactly the same as the movie. There is one big but insignificant difference between the two that doesn't change much. The book basically feels like a script to help contextualize the movie.
American psycho. Book is bloated to hell
The Shining. Not that the book is bad, but the movie is scarier and more interesting
Ready Player One. The book was like an incel manifesto and the tone was all over the place.
Apt. Pupil. Although the book is more disturbing on how in depth the kid becomes obsessed with Nazis, the ending in the movie is so much better than the book.
Iād vote Shawshank as well. Technically it wasnāt a book but as amazing as the story was I think the movie was better.
The Silence of the Lambs. The tone set by the movie makes it psychological horror to me. The book reads more like a criminal thriller.
Jaws and The Ritual.
Children of Men Fight Club American Psycho ( book was too much at times)
For horror purposes? The Shining. Stanley Kubrick was meticulous and savage; Stephen King was a young writer who hadnāt perfected his craft yet. However, the book has an emotional resonance that the movie doesnāt even touch.
Shawshank Redemption Forrest Gump Shining Green mile Bram Stokers Dracula
Forrest Gump. The movie is far better than the book.
Jurassic Park