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 51-99 of 99 (99 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Maryposa wrote: "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 t..."
Yeah I'm aware of that, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a great adaptation!
To me the "Beautiful Creatures" movie was better than the book. I liked Ethan's character better in the movie because he was portrayed more fun-loving and macho. In the book, he had all these details about where girls shop and get prom dresses that didn't seem realistic for a teenage guy.
Roxy wrote: "The Perks of Being a Wallflower was a fantastic adaptation. My Sister's Keeper on the other hand..."I agree, "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" is a great book and now a great movie, too.
Sophie's Choice - the movie version cut out all the junk I didn't like in the book and brought the good parts to life in a magical way for me. It also didn't hurt that it had arguably the world's best actress playing the role of a lifetime. A fabulous movie from a book that I had a hard time finishing.
Tony wrote: "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 tim..."I prefer the Tyone Power film of The Razor's Edge from 1946.
Better movie adaptation than source book? No doubt, The Bridges of Madison County. The movie is just great (well, it helps having Eastwood directing and Streep's flawless performance). The book is horrible. I also agree on The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: the Fitzgerald story sketches the concept brilliantly taken to the screen (and thoroughly exploited in its implications) by Fincher and friends.
My go-to examples of movies better than their books are: "Shawshank Redemption" and "The Notebook"
I read the graphic novel, "Hugo" and loved it. Then I watched the movie, "Hugo" and loved it even more. Since the the story is partly about early motion pictures and clips of early silent movies were included, it was such a treat to view. When the Tony nominations are up, the discussion could be... what's better...the book, movie or stage play/musical? I loved the movie "Kinky Boots" but I loved Cyndi Lauper's musical adaptation more. Wonder if there is a book? Or Les Miserables...I'll stop now.
I usually like the book better, but sometimes it just depends which one I see/read first. For example, I loved the movie About a Boy, but was disappointed in the book. I also think the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory maybe not have been better than the book, but pretty darn close! But, I saw that first. Sometimes, I wish they wouldn't make so many movies from books. I kinda like my books to be books and my movies to be movies! :)
Bridges of Madison County. Dreadful book, very good movie.
All Stephen King's books are better than the movies, except Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, and Apt Pupil. Too bad I haven't seen The Shining, though. They said it's a good movie.
Forrest Gump was definitely better as a movie. The book was utterly ridiculous. Other examples: "Legends of the Fall" and "Stand By Me" -- both adapted from short stories/novellas, and both movies were much better.
Tony wrote: "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 tim..."Hmm, my wife and I had the exact opposite reaction, appalled I guess sums it up. Bill Murray was so wrong (for us) in that role. Now, we'd both read the book long before the movie. On the other hand, I loved the 1946 Tyrone Power/Gene Tierney version. Different strokes . . .
I think To Kill a Mockingbird is excellent in both film and print.
what about Harry Potter? I have heard they are both good (movie and books)
The Fantastic Mr. Fox--Both good, but the movie was better, in my opinion.Some people have mentioned it, but Field of Dreams
No Country for Old Men--Again, both are fantastic, but I might have to side with the Coens when it comes to who told the story better.
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 read Mitchell fell over laughing at the bridge game when she first saw the photo of the Tara set.
I thought Secret Life of Bees, a great book, was also done very well as a movie. And I disagree with the rating of the Polar Express movie. I think it is a fantastic adaptation that expanded the spirit of the book wonderfully.
I was so disappointed when I read "The Princess Bride" years after I saw the movie.
Schindler's list - I studdied Schindlers Ark for A level, and could totally see it in my mind, it was an amazing story written in vivid visual terms and the film, when I saw it completely brought it to life in the same way - the most sensitive and accurate casting, fliming and adaption of book to film I have ever seen, and it still stands out all this time later. The book which has repeatedly been made into a number of very poor films, and which has failed miserably (if somewhat scenically in Jim Caviezels case) every time is 'The Count of Monte Christo' - amazing book that no film maker has ever done real justice to...
I saw the movie version of Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" quite a few years before reading its original on paper. I remember I found it an astonishingly good film. When I finally came to read Eco's novel I found this equally great, though remarkably different from the much abridged silver screen adaptation.That's the case when the same story is enjoyable in both versions and a "based-on-a-book" film doesn't necessarily need to be too close to the novel it comes from to be OK.
Catherine wrote: "Bridges of Madison County. Dreadful book, very good movie."Oh, that's funny because I feel the exact opposite - I loved the book but didn't really care for the movie. While I thought Meryle Streep did a good job, I couldn't imagine Clint Eastwood in the role, he didn't fit what was in my head when I read the book. I couldn't picture anyone but Robert Redford playing the part of Kinkade & Veronica Hamel as Francesca!
Eat, Pray, Love...Julia Roberts portrayed a much less self absorbed woman!
I find most of Tom Clancy's books are fascinating, but the movies cut to the best characters and it is easier to follow.
my all time favourite book-film is Gone with the wind.
Guys, what about The Green Mile? I've loved the book and adored the movie.
They are two different experiences. There is no comparison. Comparing a novel to a film adaptation is like comparing mashed potato's to peas.
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.http://www.holi2013.org
Holi 2013
About Bridges of Madison county, I agree with Catherine; bad book, good movie.
The movie of the Pawnbroker exceeds the power of the book.
I agree with Ana, that it is better that there is a lot of time between readinga book and watching it's movie. And for me especially with the books by J.K. Rowling.
Yehia wrote: "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."Graphic novels are books. Please don't forget this.
Maryposa wrote: "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 t..."
This begs the question, are books adapted into films by or with the cooperation of their authors better than those adapted by other writers?
I can't believe no one has mentioned The Princess Bride or Devil Wears Prada. The book in the case of the former, it possesses a period (when it was written) flavor that is occasionally sexist. The movie allows Buttercup to grow as a character. In the later book, Andi was whiny and only saw the world in black and white. She was put upon, everyone else was mean. In the film (which I think was better), even the villiness has a soul and even Andi isn't infalible. The film was just more authentic than the book.
In general, films are inferior to books because they are less broad and less deep than their sources. Films interpret, cut and focus on the dierctor 's perspective.
As a child the books by Laura Ingalls-Wilder were my favourites. The tv-series that are based upon her books are terrible and I know because I haveseen them more than once. And I read all the books to my daughter when she was little. And I still adore the books, but the the tv-series are not even based upon her books, only the names of some of the characters are from the books.
I both read the book and saw the movie of The devil wears Prada and I prefer the movie.
"The Love Letter" with Kate Capshaw, Elle Degeneres and Tom Selleck was hilarious and the book, way too wordy/boring. "It's A Wonderful Life" - the book is just a tiny pamphlet of a story...and the movie is a classic. I also agree with "Forest Gump" - read only one chapter of the book and have seen and enjoyed the movie several times. Also "The Shawshank Redemption" would be on my list.
Would it be possible to get a list of the 300 books that were compared?
Rachael, I think _What's Eating Gilbert Grape_ (novel and screenplay by Peter Hedges) is a great example that authorial involvement doesn't help an adaptation. The movie is so watered-down. The older kids that keep the family going financially--one is seen only in a photograph and the other never rates a mention. In the novel, Becky is much too young for Gilbert to be involved with, so the film version eases that up. Arnie in the novel is ugly, obese, and lost an eye when Janice (omitted entirely from the film) was drunk and throwing darts at a dartboard on the back of a door that Arnie opened at the wrong time. In the novel, the Burger World is being built through much of the course of the novel, but in the film, the completed building is laid down off the back of a trailer. That just seemed so pat and silly, and failing to capture the buzz of a new fast food joint being built in a neighborhood the way the book did.I've heard if Forrest Gump had stayed true to the book, it would be like those stupid Which Way movies Clint Eastwood did.
Yvonne wrote: "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."
The only thing I thought that the film really did right vs. the novel was abbreviate the father's story that took up an entire fourth of the book, and had needlessly graphic description of the main character's conception, including an illustration of the dad's butt hanging out during the act.
I thought making the pirate a crossdresser was bad, and the film's generic fantasy-adventure fight climax annoying.
Scott Andrew wrote: "Yvonne wrote: "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 exac..."
Cross dressing was weird, but it also was comedic and provided viewers an instance where his crew might revolt but instead they were completely loyal. It also made his knowledge about paying attention to Tristan and Yvanne's love more believable.
As a woman, the love story was much better in the movie. Yvanne's speech in the witches wagon is spot on and perfect and just makes my heart so happy each time I hear it.
I made a list of movies that turned out better than their books here on my blog: http://bookbrainer.blogspot.com.es/20...It's weird when it happens, but sometimes it happens.
It sometimes happens though. The Jaws movie is way better than the book. And I also like Breakfast At Tiffany's better in movie version.
Oh, and two word: Stanley. Kubrick.
Yes Laura, the books by J.K Rowling are very good. For me the first three book-movies werd nearly as good as the books, but the last four were by far not as good as the books.
I went to see that movie with my parents (who had not read the book) and they found it hard to follow (IMO because of some omissions from the book). Personally I always read the book before watching the movie, especially if I'm excited to see said movie.
I agree with Dave, a movie rarely is better than a book because of the journey, a book will give you more details and insight into the characters. However, we should appreciate the struggle that filmmakers go through to put a 500 plus-page book into a two hour movie, and more often than not, if you've read the book you can appreciate the effort put into that translation, and it is cool to see your imagination realized on screen.