Very rarely do movie adaptations of novels surpass the source material or even live up to them. The reason why comes down to a few different reasons, whether it’s because of a film’s time restraints, which means having to cut out a lot of scenes from the book, or because it doesn’t fit with the readers’ original perception.
However, on some occasions, a movie adaptation can not only be as good as the novel on which it’s based but be far superior too. Between Stephen Spielberg turning a pulpy Michael Crichton novel into a magical cinematic experience and Francis Ford Coppola turning trashy gangster fiction into the greatest film of all time, these are Reddit’s favorites.
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)
So many mystery crime novels have been adapted over the decades, and few of them manage to do the source material any justice. However, Mwprice102 believes that the 2011 adaptation is better than the book it’s based on. The Redditor explains that “there are basically hundreds of pages of stuff from the book that were cut for the movie that I didn’t miss at all.”
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an exceptionally long book, and a lot of it is unnecessary. But thriller auteur David Fincher managed to create the book’s biggest and most important moments and tie them together with a tight, compelling narrative. The 2009 Swedish adaptation does a great job at that too.
American Psycho (2000)
American Psycho is one of the most interesting character studies of the 21st century, as it follows a wealthy businessman who turns into a serial killer. But there are a lot of differences between the book and the movie, and Reddit user Mafternoonshyamalan thinks that’s for the best.
The Redditor thinks the book is “dull, repetitive, and boring until it’s nauseatingly violent. The movie strips this all down and actually manages to get the heart of what it was trying to say.” But the movie also forgoes a lot of the novel’s violence, as a lot of it is off-screen, leaving the viewer to think the most unimaginable things. And there are also a lot of outrageous moments in the book that would be totally unbelievable in the world the movie builds, such as when he lets a rat eat a woman’s body.
Jurassic Park (1993)
Maybe_Im_Really_DVA argues that Jurassic Park is much better than the classic novel, explaining that, “While the book is great, the movie just has that magic that can’t be beaten.” The book is just as entertaining as the movie and created all of the classic characters, but a lot of those characters are much less likable in the novel.
On top of that, the movie was so innovative at the time and even movies released today, almost 30 years later, struggle to match how realistic the practical and digital effects look in the 1993 movie. And no moment in the book is as terrifying as its on-screen counterpart, whether it’s the velociraptors in the kitchen or the first encounter with the T-rex.
The Bourne Identity (2002)
Exmo_therapist thinks that The Bourne Identity is much better than the book, claiming that “it’s hard for me to find many of the situations in the books believable by today’s standards. A younger, more vicious version from the movies feels more believable.”
The Bourne Identity is to thank for almost single-handedly changing the landscape of action movies in the 2000s, and there wouldn’t be another major Hollywood movie as influential in the genre until John Wick in 2014. After Bourne, almost every action movie used shakycam and took a more realistic and grounded approach to the narrative. The film started a whole trend of gritty spy movies.
The Shining (1980)
TheCenterOfEnniu thinks that 1980’s The Shining is much better than Stephen King’s novel of the same name. That’s neither a popular nor unpopular opinion, as the idea that Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining is better than the book has divided fans.
Film buffs tend to prefer the Kubrick-directed horror classic, and fans of Stephen King tend to prefer the novel because the movie takes so many liberties with the source material to the point where it’s almost completely different. That’s why Stephen King himself hates the movie adaptation.
The Godfather (1972)
I_never_post_but has some fighting words to say about the source material of The Godfather. The Redditor argues that “the book is pulp at best, trash at worst, yet was used as the basis for two undisputed cinematic masterpieces.”
The Redditor is right when they say the novel is pulpier, as it leans into more of the exciting violent side of gangster fiction, such as Luca Brasi being a way more menacing, ruthless hitman. The book isn’t as layered or as detailed as the movie either. The adaptation is the second greatest movie of all time according to IMDb, the sequel is a close third, and The Godfather Part III is great in its own right.
The Mist (2007)
Anyone who has seen the movie adaptation of Stephen King’s The Mist can’t forget that shocking way it ended. To keep his three friends and son from being monster food, he shoots each of them in the head with his four remaining bullets, leaving himself to be torn apart by the monsters.
It’s emotionally exhausting and completely traumatizing, but it’s one of the movie adaptations with darker endings, as that doesn’t happen in the novel, which ends in a much more hopeful way. Radthereptile claims the movie is better because of the shocking finale and points out that “even Stephen King says it’s better and he wishes he had thought of that ending.”
No Country For Old Men (2007)
The Coen brothers, two of the greatest American filmmakers, often write original screenplays, but every now and then, an existing story will catch their attention. That was the case in 2007 when they adapted Cormac McCarthy’s No Country For Old Men.
However, just like how the Coens tend to leave their movies open-ended and ambiguous, McCarthy works similarly, and that’s why Shadownight311 thinks the novel is worse. The Redditor claims that the book is “a bit confusing, as the author seems to hate punctuation. The movie was so much better and easier to follow.” McCarthy rarely uses commas, and it’s hard to know whether what is being read is dialogue, descriptive, or anything else.
Jaws (1975)
Though some Redditors think Jaws is boring, it was unprecedented in so many different ways at the time. The 1975 movie started the trend of summer blockbusters, it was a horror movie set during the day, and, according to Ryan0413, it’s much better than the book too.
It seems like Spielberg is great at turning unlikable novel characters into loveable movie characters because, just as was the case with Jurassic Park, it’s hard to relate to the characters in the Jaws book. The Redditor explains that Spielberg, “had to change the characters because when he read it, he rooted for the shark.”
Die Hard (1988)
Die Hard is one of the most exciting action movies ever made, but because it has the simple premise of a cop taking down a group of terrorists in a building, few would believe it’s actually based on a book. The movie is an adaptation of Roderick Thorp’s Nothing Lasts Forever, but Mksavage1138 is one of many who think the movie is far superior.
The Reddit user notes that the “screenwriters deserve 99% of the credit.” Though a lot of the action scenes and even dialogue are directly lifted from the book, the novel has a much darker, guilt-ridden tone compared to the more exciting 1988 popcorn flick.
