Movies that a better than the book

We hear it a lot, don’t we? The book was better than the movie. This sentiment has come up countless times in my life, especially since my dad was a hardcore reader. He wasn’t shy about reminding me, over and over, how much superior the book was to the movie. It became a mantra—books were always better. But today, we don’t hear that phrase as often. Maybe it’s because fewer people are reading nowadays, or perhaps it’s because so much content is being produced that to keep up with every new book and movie, you’d need to dedicate every waking moment to consuming a fraction of the endless content out there. The last time I remember hearing this debate on a wide scale was when Game of Thrones was still airing. Fans of the books were always raving about them, pointing out how much richer and complex the story was compared to the show. But here’s the thing: the Game of Thrones book series isn’t finished. It probably won’t ever be. And what we got was a TV series that wrapped up with one of the most disappointing, “what-the-hell-just-happened” endings in recent memory.

What are we even talking about when we say, “The book is better”? It’s a phrase that gets tossed around all the time, but what does it really mean? Sure, a lot of movies are adapted from books, but when it comes down to it, they’re two different mediums of storytelling—each with its own strengths and weaknesses. A book gives us so much more detail, depth, and inner thought. We get the characters’ internal monologues, the slow build-up of tension, the subtle clues that may only make sense later in the story. A book isn’t limited by the constraints of budget, CGI effects, or a lackluster performance from an actor. In that sense, it has the freedom to explore ideas in a way movies often can’t.

But let’s not forget that reading a book is a big commitment in its own right. It’s a time investment that requires focus. Your enjoyment of the book will depend heavily on your reading comprehension, how fast you can get through it, and your ability to immerse yourself in one task for hours. That’s a different experience than watching a movie, where you can let your mind wander while still being entertained by the visuals and pacing.

Books vs. Movies: Story Consumption and Expectations

The thing is, both books and movies are just different ways to consume a story. Sure, there are other mediums out there—TV shows, video games, graphic novels—but when it comes to adaptations, books and movies are often compared. The reason? Movies are usually based on books, so naturally, the two tend to be held up against each other. Since the book almost always comes first, people who read it before seeing the movie tend to form a clear image in their heads of what the characters and the world look like. That mental picture, shaped by the words on the page, becomes the real version of the story. And when you watch the movie afterward, it’s hard not to compare the two. It’s clear that the version you experience first will always leave a more lasting impression.

Are Books Really Always Better Than Films?

The short answer is: no. Some movies are far superior to their book counterparts. In fact, there are a handful of adaptations that improve on their source material in ways we might not expect. In the next section, I’ll go over a few examples of movies that managed to outshine the books they were based on.

What do we really mean when we say, “The book was better than the movie”? If books and movies are inherently different storytelling methods, is it even fair—or possible—to compare them? It’s a tricky question, one that’s been asked time and time again.

When we experience a story, it’s being expressed through either a book or a movie. The medium shapes the way the story is told. A book gives us direct access to characters’ thoughts, inner conflicts, and rich descriptions. A movie, on the other hand, presents the story visually, using images, sound, and performance to convey what a book might describe in pages. So when we compare the two, we’re really comparing how the same story is presented to us—how plot points are hit, how pacing flows, how the emotions are conveyed, and so on.

The truth is that books are the ultimate storytelling medium. It is the best way to tell your story. Some stories can only be told in a selected medium like Undertale could not be told as a book or movie since it deconstructs players’ established relationship to videogames. House of Leaves could not be told as anything other than a book since it uses the medium. Everything else being equal a book just has way more detailed inner thoughts and descriptions to weave a complete story. That being said since the book is always (mostly always) being written before the movie adaptation it could skew people’s perception. If half of all movies would be made into books I don’t know if people would prefer the book version after seeing the film.  

What does it take to make a good adaptation?

Before we get into the final list I think we have to explore what it takes to make a good adaptation. First of all, if you want the story told in the book, you have to read the book. An adaptation of a book is an interpretation. It is not possible to adapt every single aspect and nuance of a book. It should also be noted that some things are just not good on film. Take an example like Lord of the Rings in the book

The Hobbits meet a lot of different people before getting to the council of Elrond they meet elves that are not in the movie and of course Tom Bombadil, a fan favorite. Now, Tom Bombadil is not in the movie and honestly, I understand why. 

When you read The Lord of the Rings, the vastness of the world and its lore feels almost overwhelming. You’re immersed in so much detail, and everything feels warm and cozy. The movies, though long, give themselves time to explore much of the world, but when we read the Tom Bombadil segment from The Fellowship of the Ring, it’s clear that this part is better suited for a book than a movie. Tom is too mysterious, and his presence would likely frustrate audiences, especially at the time.

The film needs to launch the adventure quickly and then gradually explore the lore. In contrast, the book spends much more time in the Shire and Bree, but a film has to move faster to keep the plot engaging, given the time constraints. This is why it’s often necessary to make changes to the book that simply work better on screen.

Since books and movies are such different storytelling mediums, a successful adaptation must play to the strengths of film, not just try to replicate what makes books good. I believe most bad adaptations fail because they try to stay too faithful to the book. It becomes clear that when you use music and visuals effectively, you’re leveraging the strengths of film, creating a more compelling adaptation.

Adaptations are always a topic of debate, but when it comes to movies based on books, some films improve on their source material, while others offer a different take that stands on its own. In this post, I’ll explore two categories of adaptations: Bad-Good and Good-Different.

In Bad-Good adaptations, the movie takes a weaker or underwhelming book and transforms it into something much better. On the other hand, Good-Different adaptations stay true to the heart of a strong book but take creative liberties to make the story work for the big screen, resulting in a unique experience that still honors the original.

 

The two categories are thus bad-good and Good-difference. 

The List

JAWS (Bad-Good)

Jaws as a book is underwhelming, to say the least. The book focuses way more on Brody and his cheating wife than the shark. At best it’s a deeply mediocre and lackluster family drama. 

The Movie utilizes everything good about movies. It has those nice and quiet moments on the boat with the 3 main characters along with a kickass ending. And of course, the iconic music by John Williams is unforgettable, transforming simple moments into pulse-pounding sequences. The score’s ability to signal the shark’s approach is not just an auditory cue; it’s an essential piece of the film’s storytelling that heightens the dread with every note. The film’s use of sound, pacing, and focus on suspense turns what was a lackluster narrative into an electrifying cinematic experience.

Psycho (Bad-Good)

What is the book even about? It’s so forgettable that I honestly forgot it was a book I had read. Were it not for this list I would have completely forgotten about it. 

The movie, however, is iconic. Hitchcock masterfully uses sound, particularly in the scene where Marion drives after stealing the money. The oppressive music heightens her paranoia, showing her fear without her saying a word. The famous shower scene, with its unforgettable sound effects and stabbing music, remains one of the most memorable moments in film history.

Anthony Perkins’ performance as Norman Bates is equally unforgettable. He brought a disturbing depth to the character, which the book never achieved. The visual of him framed by dead animals in his office adds an unsettling layer to his persona, showcasing how the film surpasses the book in capturing the essence of its characters.

Stand by me (Bad-Good)

It might not be internally fair to say Stand by Me is bad, however, it is also not fair to call it good either. Stephen King is of course a master of his craft, but Stand by Me or The Body as the short story is called is kind of underwhelming. King wrote the greatest horror book of all time in IT, however, what works in IT is not the scary clown, but the relationships between all the characters. The characters felt so real to me and when I finished the book I felt like I knew all of them from my own childhood. The Body tries to capture the same feeling, but it’s way too short to establish any real connection. Ace, for instance, feels like a weaker version of the antagonist from IT, Henry Bowers.

The film feels more like a coming-of-age road movie. The four boys embark on a journey to see a dead body. The story is simple and easy to tell. With this simplicity comes the time to ease into every moment of intimacy. In the end, the main character reflects on his friends and as they leave they fade away as he tells us what happens to them and the narrator says:

“I Never Had Any Friends Later On Like the Ones I Had When I Was Twelve” 

This sentiment is at the heart of the film, and the way it shows the boys fading away as the narrator recalls their futures truly captures the passage of time in a way only film can.

The Shawshank Redemption (Bad-Good)

Not all of King’s work has been adapted with equal success, and Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption (the short story) is a prime example. As a short story, it doesn’t have the space to build a large, emotionally resonant narrative. The movie, however, elevates it in every way. While the story is solid, it lacks the soul and depth that the film brings to life.

The movie, now a classic and ranked #1 on IMDb, is filled with unforgettable moments. The scene where Andy plays opera for the inmates or the iconic moment where he escapes and stands in the rain with his arms raised—these moments are cinematic and powerful, capturing emotions that the short story never fully conveys. The medium of film amplifies these moments, adding gravitas that the original story simply lacks.

2001 A Space Odyssey (Bad-Good)

This is a strange case since the book and movie were developed alongside each other. The book was released after the film. The Book is written by the legendary Arthur C Clark, a man known as one of the Big Tree sci-fi writers. Clark’s other books are great, but this one just seemed doomed to fail from the start. 

The film is made by the legendary Stanley Kubrick who uses his vast array of amazing directing skills to make possibly the most influential movies of all time. The iconic opening with apes and the incredible iconic music to the cut from the bones to the spaceship is the greatest cut in movie history. Everything works so well in the movie, the voice of Hall, the red eye, the way Hall says “I can’t do that Dave”. It’s all so iconic and masterfully made and the book frankly doesn’t hold up. 

 

Apocalypse now (Good-Different)

Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad 

Based on Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, Apocalypse Now, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, shifts the story into the context of the Vietnam War while retaining the core theme of the descent into madness. As the characters journey deeper into the jungle, they fall further into chaos, mirroring the psychological toll of war.

Some scenes are perfect for the film medium, such as the iconic napalm strike set to Ride of the Valkyries. The visual and auditory impact of this sequence takes the horrors of war and amplifies them in a way the original novel never could.

Blade Runner (Good-Different)

The original book is named “Do Androids Dream of electric sheep” which is possibly the greatest title to a book ever. The book is vastly different from the movie in a good way. The book is about Deckard trying to get enough money to buy an animal. All animals have been replaced with replicas and real animals are hard to come by.

The visuals are jaw-dropping, the world of this dystopian cyberpunk world feels fully alive and rich. Deckard has no wife in this version, making for a great opportunity to expand on the humanity of the replicants since he falls in love with Rachael. Roy Batty is an amazing villain with a great look. The scene where he kills his creator saying he wants more life is great. When Roy deafetes Deckard at the end he saves him from falling and gives the greatest speech in movie history, the Tears in Rain speech. It’s shot and endlessly potent and does not feature in the book. In fact, the fight with Roy in the book is super underwhelming. The original book is definitely good, but the movie is still better. 

Silence of the lambs (Good-Different)

It’s debatable whether the film is definitively better than the book, but the adaptation certainly makes some interesting changes. While the book dives deeper into Clarice’s relationship with her boss and his obsession with her, the film shifts the focus more toward Hannibal Lecter. The presence of Anthony Hopkins—one of the greatest actors of all time—elevates the character, making him a central figure rather than just a supporting role.

The film also employs clever visual tricks to enhance the power dynamics. For instance, when Clarice talks to Hannibal, the camera places her looking down while he faces directly at the audience, subtly indicating his control over the situation. This is a detail unique to the film medium.

Additionally, the movie amplifies Clarice’s vulnerability, showcasing her as both a rookie FBI agent and a woman trying to navigate a male-dominated field. The film’s portrayal of Buffalo Bill in the dark adds an extra layer of suspense and tension that the book doesn’t quite achieve in the same way.

Bonus round: It’s complicated 

I want to highlight 2 more adaptations that are in my opinion just as good as their book counterpart, yet different enough so that picking between the two becomes almost impossible and all down to personal preference. 

The Shining 

The Shining is infamous for having a big dispute between the director of the film Kubrick and the Author of the book Stephen King. The two versions of the story, while both being about The Torrance family and a hotel, are vastly different in both feel, themes, and execution. The overall plot is the same, Jack Torrance takes the job as a groundskeeper at a hotel in the wintertime. He brings his family with him. Everything is fine in the beginning, but soon Jack starts to lose his mind. Is it just because of the isolation or is there something more sinister going on? 

The book focuses heavily on family dynamics—specifically, the breakdown of Jack Torrance’s family. One of the most heartbreaking moments is when Wendy realizes that her son Danny loves his abusive father more than her. The novel is a poignant exploration of that family struggle.  

The biggest slight against the films is that Jack Nicholson plays the role a little too insanely. In the book, Jack is a normal man from the start, but in the film, Jack plays it like he is already a bit off. 

Lord of the Rings 

he Lord of the Rings trilogy is often considered the greatest trilogy of all time. The costumes, atmosphere, music, acting, world-building, and cinematography are world-class. The films, however, differ from the books in significant ways, and Peter Jackson made smart decisions about what to cut. Tom Bombadil, for example, never would have worked on the big screen. Action scenes are also far more intense in the films, while the books often glaze over them quickly.

The books take their time, introducing new characters and expanding the world at a slower pace, making it feel incredibly rich. The films, on the other hand, focus more on spectacle and action. Adapting the books exactly as written would have been a mistake, as there’s quite a bit of “fluff” that would have slowed down the story.

That said, the movies are aging, and future audiences might see them as dated. However, that’s true of every film over time. The core difference between the two mediums is that the books are about immersing readers in the world, while the films are designed to deliver an epic spectacle. It’s hard to say one is definitively better, as they aim for different goals. In 50 years, people will still read the books, while the films may not hold up the same way—but that’s just speculation.

Conclusion

In the end, adaptations are tricky beasts. Some films surpass their source material by improving on or expanding the core ideas, while others take creative liberties that make them entirely different experiences. Whether it’s a Bad-Good case like Psycho, where the film elevates a forgettable book, or a Good-Different adaptation like The Lord of the Rings, where the films successfully streamline and visualize an otherwise slow-paced, world-building epic, it all comes down to personal preference.

What’s important is that these adaptations work within their medium. Movies can offer moments of spectacle, tension, and visual depth that books simply can’t. Meanwhile, novels can provide rich detail and nuance that films often gloss over. Each medium has its strengths, and when the right choices are made, the adaptation becomes an entirely new work of art—sometimes even better than the original.

Ultimately, it’s all about finding that balance: making the story accessible and impactful for a new audience while still honoring what made the original special. Whether you prefer the book or the movie, it’s the way these adaptations resonate with us that makes them unforgettable. So, which do you prefer? That’s up to you, and maybe that’s the beauty of it all.