20 Internet Users Share the Movies That Outshined the Books They Are Based On

The number of people who opt for watching the screen version of a book instead of reading it keeps growing and there is a reason for this: perfect acting, the work of directors and cameramen, and special effects can turn any plot into a spectacular show. At the same time, the opinion that reading the book first is the proper way to approach this scenario, is still there. Which side are you on?

Bright Side has carefully studied readers’ and viewers’ opinions who are sure that some movies deserve much more attention than the books they are based on and we’re bringing this topic up for your discussion.

• JoJo Rabbit was better than Caging Skies. The book was so bleak that it probably wouldn’t have been adapted otherwise. © THACC-

• Jaws. Steven Spielberg said that when he read the novel he found himself rooting for the shark, because the human characters were so unlikeable. The movie got rid of the unnecessary subplots like the mayor’s involvement with the mafia and Ellen Brody having an affair with Hooper. © Podlubnyi

• The author of Who Censored Roger Rabbit? loved the film so much and thought the story did so much better, that he revised his original story and rewrote his [books] to go along with the film’s storyline. © LittlestSlipper55

• Forrest Gump. I read the book in high school because I loved the movie (the soundtrack for the movie was my favorite album for most of my junior year). That being said, Groom did get the right “flavors” of the deep south, and especially Alabama, in that book. Still, the movie was better. © CandyAppleSauce

• The Silence of the Lambs. It was incredibly drawn out at times and they were right to cut a lot of it out of the movie. The author also feels the need to describe the hell out of everything and it gets tedious to read. © dcbluestar

• The Devil Wears Prada. I love the movie, and I went to read it and had to force myself to finish the book since I started it. I hate-read it. Andy is so unlikeable in the book that you have to wonder how she kept the job at all or had any friends or a boyfriend. All she does is complain. I’m glad they were able to make a wonderful movie out of this, because Meryl Streep is flawless as Miranda Priestly. © aser2323
• The Mist, even [Stephen King] agreed. © nuclear_lobster

• Fantastic Mr. Fox. It’s my favorite book of all time, but that movie is incredible. Wes Anderson just made it his own thing. The movie has so much more character. Mr. Fox in the movie is so charming and intelligent, but also 10 times more arrogant than he was in the books. But he makes up for it in the end. Also, his backstory with the wolf is amazing. Mrs. Fox is also so much goddamn better. And don’t even get me started on my favorites Ash and Kristofferson. © oh-lawd-hes-coming

• The Notebook. Rachel McAdams brought a flair and charisma that wasn’t in the book. © cleo1844
• Big Fish. The movie explores the wondrous world of a father’s outrageous stories, but the book lacks all that lavish imagery. Instead, it’s just a bitter retelling from a spoiled child who thought his daddy didn’t love him enough. © cavaliereternally

• Stardust. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Neil Gaiman, and the Stardust book was really good, but the movie was absolutely enchanting. I mean, seeing Robert De Niro as Captain Shakespeare? Life-changing. Not to mention a much better ending. © twilighttruth

• I think Arrival was better, and that’s coming from someone who really liked the short story. The movie is just better at telling that story overall. © GreatTragedy

• The Constant Gardener. This is coming from a huge Le Carré fan — I found the book to be incredibly... dull. The book was slow and everything was over-described, which I appreciate is part of Le Carré’s style, but this was his first attempt at non-cold-war storytelling and it didn’t really click. The movie brought it all to life; the characters, the landscape, the plot. © Irish_Tom

• Fight Club. The book had a better ending, but it was written in such a bizarre style that it was a chore to read. And it’s a short book too. Did you guys know that the author, Chuck Palahniuk, also liked the movie better than the book? © Driver_goon
• Every James Bond. The books are for the most part pretty dreadful. © BZH_JJM
• Shrek! They took a 36-page book and turned it into the greatest movie of all time. © krakrocks

• Dances With Wolves. In the book, Dunbar stays with the natives and I felt it was out of character with what had happened before. In the book he is even packing his things to leave, but is then convinced to stay. I feel the movie was the better ending. Plus the sheer epic scope of the landscapes and the buffalo hunt were even more incredible than I pictured in the book. That movie is one of the greatest westerns ever made. © Krinks1

• No Country for Old Men. The book is great, but McCarthy’s style of writing makes it pretty difficult to read and follow the flow of what’s going on. Meanwhile, the movie has you on the edge of your seat, has a very eerie feel to it, and the casting is very spot on. © TwoSnapsMack

• Jurassic Park. The book was excellent, but the dinosaurs were a backdrop to Dr. Malcolm’s musings on Chaos Theory. Certainly a worthwhile read, but by God was the movie just so much more fun. © Gerreth_Gobulcoque

• To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before. I watched the movie and loved it so much that I bought the book trilogy. The movie is beautiful, but reading the book made me realize that it’s the cinematography and acting that make the movie so good — the actual plot line is really cheesy. The books are also written in a really simple way, for a much younger audience. © cheesy

What other movies would you add to this list? Why?