Sign in with Facebook
Is the Book Really Better Than the Movie?
Half of this year's ten Best Picture nominees are based on books: Lincoln (adapted from Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals), Life of Pi (from Yann Martel's novel), Silver Linings Playbook (from Matthew Quick's book), Les Misérables (Victor Hugo, by way of Broadway), and Argo (based on both Antonio J. Mendez's autobiography The Master of Disguise and Joshuah Bearman's article from Wired). But the jump from page to screen isn't always so successful. Too many times we leave the theater sighing and saying, "The book was better." Of course, the opposite is sometimes true. Occasionally a story is so well adapted that it will outshine the original source material. Ever hear of the 1979 thriller Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp? It spawned the movie Die Hard, which has gone on to become one of the most memorable movie franchises of the last 30 years. "Yippee-ki-yay!" indeed.
Here's the big question: Is the book really better than the movie? In our search for an answer, we looked at more than 300 books and the movies made from them to determine whether the adaptations generally received better or worse reviews than their counterparts. For the books, we used our average rating (found on every book page on Goodreads). For the movies, we used the Rotten Tomatoes average audience rating.
In general, people liked the books in our sample set better than the movies, giving the books an average rating of 3.94 stars while rating the movies just 3.59. This makes sense, though, as one would imagine that relatively few unpopular books get adapted into movies.
By analyzing the movies to see which ones had higher ratings than the book they were based on and ordering them by the size of the difference in ratings, we were able to calculate exactly which adaptations were significantly better on the screen. The results are somewhat surprising:
Two of the top 10 adaptations from our list are nominated for Best Picture this year— the movie version of Life of Pi outpaced its book source material by a considerable margin and Argo trails only The Social Network for highest ratings discrepancy. Even though only one of the adaptations on our list won Best Picture (despite eight of the ten being nominated), we're betting on Argo to beat the odds and take home the big award.
And then there are the adaptations that maybe should've stayed on the page. When it comes to book-based movies that have disappointed us, the lesson seems to be "Do not mess with our childhood memories!" Either that or "Do not mess with Dr. Seuss!" Children's movies dominate the list of worst adaptations.
[image error]
Do you have a favorite book-to-movie adaptation? How about one you'd rather forget ever happened? And who do you think will take home Oscar gold?
Here's the big question: Is the book really better than the movie? In our search for an answer, we looked at more than 300 books and the movies made from them to determine whether the adaptations generally received better or worse reviews than their counterparts. For the books, we used our average rating (found on every book page on Goodreads). For the movies, we used the Rotten Tomatoes average audience rating.
In general, people liked the books in our sample set better than the movies, giving the books an average rating of 3.94 stars while rating the movies just 3.59. This makes sense, though, as one would imagine that relatively few unpopular books get adapted into movies.
By analyzing the movies to see which ones had higher ratings than the book they were based on and ordering them by the size of the difference in ratings, we were able to calculate exactly which adaptations were significantly better on the screen. The results are somewhat surprising:
Two of the top 10 adaptations from our list are nominated for Best Picture this year— the movie version of Life of Pi outpaced its book source material by a considerable margin and Argo trails only The Social Network for highest ratings discrepancy. Even though only one of the adaptations on our list won Best Picture (despite eight of the ten being nominated), we're betting on Argo to beat the odds and take home the big award.
And then there are the adaptations that maybe should've stayed on the page. When it comes to book-based movies that have disappointed us, the lesson seems to be "Do not mess with our childhood memories!" Either that or "Do not mess with Dr. Seuss!" Children's movies dominate the list of worst adaptations.
[image error]
Do you have a favorite book-to-movie adaptation? How about one you'd rather forget ever happened? And who do you think will take home Oscar gold?
Comments Showing 1-50 of 99 (99 new)
message 1:
by
Lisa
(new)
Feb 22, 2013 05:06AM
IMO, one of the few movies that is as good (or better) than the great book it was based on is The Godfather. Life of Pi may also qualify. In both cases, loved the book, loved the movie. I also really loved both the book and movie versiond of The English Patient, although many of my friends thought the movie was better than the book.
flag
The only better movies in my opinon are Shawshank Redemption and Mystic River. No other movie ever impressed me more than the book.
Both John Carter of Mars (Burroughs) and Phantom of the Opera (Leroux) should have been left as books. True art in their written forms.
Gone With The Wind. I don't feel the movie suffered at all. At times when I pull the book out again and again, Vivian Leigh's sassiness, strength, and vulnerability always comes to mind.To Kill a MockingBird is another I loved. I'm not sure the film captured everything the book did, but had its own gentility and humanity about it that resonated on its own.
Except everything in the film version of Argo never happened!
In very rare occasions I leave the theater thinking that the movie was better than the book, and I actually can recall a single one time right now.But I do remember other occasions in which both the movie and the book are equally good and outstanding in their own media. For me, that's what happened with "A Clockwork Orange" or "True Grit" Coens version, for example. That would be a tie.
But, as implied earlier, movies based on books I have already read are most of the time a disappointment.
I tend to have the reaction to where if I don't like the book then I tend to like the movie adaptation. If I like the book, well the movie doesn't stand a chance.
It pains me to say this, as I love Cecelia Ahern, but P.S. I Love You was a far better film than book.A Series of Unfortunate Events was another one that should have just remained on the page.
Cider House Rules is a much better movie than novel; John Irving, who adapted his novel for the screen, tightened the story into a film masterpiece
Movies: Saw Twilight and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Twilight really does bring the book to life. And Benjamin Button was a great movie.Books: I've seen 7 out of the ten and yes, the book was better than the movie every time. The Hitchhiker's Guide, a lot of people pick on, but the movie did have the lighthearted fun of the book. It just wasn't as fantastic. That book is great.
Brittany wrote: "I tend to have the reaction to where if I don't like the book then I tend to like the movie adaptation. If I like the book, well the movie doesn't stand a chance."I definitely agree! Great point. Although, I haven't seen anything about the Lord of the Rings. I liked the books and the movies in that instance.
The only books I can think of that are surpassed by their film versions are Barry Lyndon, The Player, Shrek, The Invisible Man (Whale), and The Devil-Doll (based on A. Merritt's Burn Witch Burn). I would probably say The Shining if I had read The Shining, because I hated the only King novel I've read (The Regulators). A few films are as good, such as The Night of the Hunter, but I was surprised how good Davis Grubb's novel is. The film is close, but the novel has some great moments that are missing, and the writing is superb.
Sandra wrote: "Both John Carter of Mars (Burroughs) and Phantom of the Opera (Leroux) should have been left as books. True art in their written forms."I read The Phantom of the Opera in the original French, and the 1925 film seemed the closest, except for the ending with the torch-bearing villagers, but I don't think Leroux's ending would work too well in a silent film.
I think The Hours book and movie are equally fantastic.
Comparing forms can be problematic, yet in a few cases the movie can be better than the book. I blogged about it a few years ago:
http://thebadandthebeautiful.net/?p=5
How about Sin City? I know it's not a book, but I felt that the movie was a better medium than the graphic novel in that case.
I found the movie version of Field of Dreams much more coherent than the book. It seems the screenwriter(s) whittled it down to its essence. It's the only movie I've ever thought was better than its source.
I would contest the Life of Pi film being superior to the book. The book probably has a more tepid reception because at the time, a lot of people didn't understand it. The book, however, is terribly lavish in its narration, optimistic in its outlook, and quite a lot of the film's best moments owe themselves to the book.Though the 2005 version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory being called complete arse next to the book seems fair to me. I just wish 2009's Alice in Wonderland from the same director was also on that list.
Ella Enchanted. Book is fantastic, movie is ok is it's own way, but is a HORRIBLE book-to-movie adaptation. They pretty much just took the character names and wrote an entirely new story. Not cool.
I have always preferred the movie version of Gone With the Wind to the book. Seen and/or read both several times and my opinion on that has never changed.
Julie and Julia the movie took the cream from the book. The movie exceeded the book and left the dross behind.
The very best example of a better movie than book is Jaws. The book reads like a novelization, in my opinion: those who read it after seeing the movie are probably surprised to find out the book came first.
'LESS THAN ZERO'by Bret Easton Ellis ...the movie was much better in my opinion....saw the movie first and liked it a lot... read the book and was very disappointed...
Fight Club. Movie was better, funnier, more intricate, had more depth, than the book.It's funny that no one has mentioned The Help. Can't comment, didn't see it.
The Wizard of Oz (1939), good as it may be in itself, is horrible, sexist, and shallow as a book-to-film translation, but there are far worse examples, such as the 1925 Wizard of Oz film, as well as various cartoons, which make it look quite good by comparison.
Joshua wrote: "I find movies so different from books it's impossible to say which is better. I love Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies--as movies. But I love Tolkien's books--as books. The books are cert..."I get that, Joshua, & I agree, especially about those particular movies & books
The Razor's Edge by Somerset Maugham. I saw this incredible movie first, then read the book. I am not knocking the author, but the movie is way better. It is also on my top movie list of all time, as well as being my favorite Bill Murray film.
weighing in...I think there have been plenty of movies made from books and such is a norm that many a times you wish either you had skipped the movie or passed over the book… but “Out of Africa” has acquired the unique distinction of being both an excellent read and has gone on to be translated into an equally mesmerizing movie. It is always a pleasure either to read or watch it.
I thought they did an excellent job with the Time Traveler's Wife. It could have been very confusing. The book was confusing to me at first, until I took a few notes.
Scott Andrew wrote: "The only books I can think of that are surpassed by their film versions are Barry Lyndon, The Player, Shrek, The Invisible Man (Whale), and The Devil-Doll (based on A. Merritt's Burn Witch Burn). ..."Scott Andrew wrote: "The only books I can think of that are surpassed by their film versions are Barry Lyndon, The Player, Shrek, The Invisible Man (Whale), and The Devil-Doll (based on A. Merritt's Burn Witch Burn). ..."
Ah, the Shining was a good book (only book EVER to give me nightmares). King's early works were quite good but went downhill in the 80s with a few exceptions
Kathy wrote: "Gone With The Wind. I don't feel the movie suffered at all. At times when I pull the book out again and again, Vivian Leigh's sassiness, strength, and vulnerability always comes to mind.To Kill a..."
I read that Margaret Mitchell was disappointed in the movie.
J.J. wrote: "Fight Club. Movie was better, funnier, more intricate, had more depth, than the book.It's funny that no one has mentioned The Help. Can't comment, didn't see it."
In response to Fight Club, I find that the movie and the book are good companions in this case. If you just read the book you feel a bit lost I guess - because it is lacking in the depth you mentioned. But if you just watch the movie, the way things are done/said doesn't make as much sense as in the book. (The sort of choppy unexplained way the book is doesn't make sense for a movie, unless you've read the book).
Stardust. I love that movie, the book was okay. Neil Gaiman is GREAT, but Robert DeNiro and Clair Danes are outstanding in the movie.
Lisa wrote: "IMO, one of the few movies that is as good (or better) than the great book it was based on is The Godfather. Life of Pi may also qualify. In both cases, loved the book, loved the movie. I also real..."I agree Lisa, I loved the book and thought the film was tremendous, plus it had music!
Beth wrote: "Kathy wrote: "Gone With The Wind. I don't feel the movie suffered at all. At times when I pull the book out again and again, Vivian Leigh's sassiness, strength, and vulnerability always comes to mi..."I thought the actors were just as I had imagined them in the book.
John wrote: "I would contest the Life of Pi film being superior to the book. The book probably has a more tepid reception because at the time, a lot of people didn't understand it. The book, however, is terribl..."In response to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - yes, that movie doesn't hold a candle to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, BUT the newer version more closely follows Roald Dahl's story line.
I felt like The Hunger Games movie really outshone an already great book. The film version easily overcomes the weaknesses of a first-person narrative, which can be incredibly limiting.
A book to TV great was 'Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy' by John le Carré and starring Alec Guinness and a host of other wonderful actors; the film version starring Gary Oldman was dreadful, dull, dull, dull, no excitement as it was obvious from the first time we saw him who the spy was, wooden acting... oh I could go on! The book is wonderful, and so is the TV version... the film, nil points!
I have always liked the 1995 movie version of "Sense and Sensibility" better than the book. The book is good, but it does drag on a bit at times, and the performances in the movie are so well done. That's another job well done by Ang Lee!
I'd add "Jaws." While Benchley's novel is decent, Speilberg's vision for it made for one of the best movies ever.
A Time to Kill by John Grisham. The movie surpassed the book.
Brokeback Mountain sprouted an epic movie from a pretty bare bones short story.
The film Cabaret is a whole lot better then the short story it is based on by Isherwood.Also Mansfield Parkas a book is quite dreadful where the film is so much better.
this is ridiculous. Very rarely if ever has a movie come even close to being as good as the book, classics like The Godfather included. It would take a really bad book and a great movie adaptation-- the first that comes to mind is Pahluniak's 'Fight Club'. The book was surprisingly simplistic, making it great material for a movie. Most of what comes out of Hollywood is simplistic dumbed down for the masses.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower was a fantastic adaptation. My Sister's Keeper on the other hand...
Katie wrote: "I have always liked the 1995 movie version of "Sense and Sensibility" better than the book. The book is good, but it does drag on a bit at times, and the performances in the movie are so well done...."I quite agree. It is an excellent film.
The best example I usually give of the film being better than the book is "Field of Dreams," based on the novel "Shoeless Joe."
Roxy wrote: "The Perks of Being a Wallflower was a fantastic adaptation. My Sister's Keeper on the other hand..."Yes, but Perks of Being a Wallflower was not only adapted, but also directed by the author. It's easy to keep the vision of the original text when you're the one who wrote it.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Godfather, Let Me In, and The Shawshank Redemption are standouts in a good way. Starship Troopers, The Lord of the Rings, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in the bad way. Though I do have to disagree with Master and Commander being on the list of worst adaptations - it was different, but still enjoyable.
Tori wrote: "Stardust. I love that movie, the book was okay. Neil Gaiman is GREAT, but Robert DeNiro and Clair Danes are outstanding in the movie."Well said, Tori, my thoughts exactly.
