The books are almost always better than the adaptations. But there are cases when the adaptation ends up being better than the source material. Today, we will be looking at 7 adaptations that are better than the books. Keep reading to find out which ones they are!
There are a dozen reasons why books tend to be better. Sometimes the source material is changed (sometimes the author is at hand to give advice) and other times, the budget, acting, or time limit prevents the adaptation from living up to the source material.
One of the biggest reasons that an adaptation is better than the book is because the director or writer is a fan of the book. You can tell that an author loved the book and has tried to stay as close to the source material as possible. Whatever the reason, we as fans are happy that we got an adaptation that surpassed our expectations.
7 Adaptations That Are Better Than the Books!
- Forrest Gump directed by Robert Zemeckis; written by Eric Roth
- Book: Forrest Gump by Winston Groom
- The Shawshank Redemption written and directed by Frank Darabont
- Book: Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption by Stephen King
- The Wolf of Wall Street directed by Martin Scorsese and written by Terence Winter
- Book: The Wolf of Wall Street by Jordan Belfort
- House of the Dragon created by George R. R. Martin and Ryan Condal
- Book: Fire & Blood by George R.R. Martin
- The Painted Veil directed by John Curran and screenplay by Ron Nyswaner
- Book: The Painted Veil by W. Somerset Maugham
- The Silence of the Lambs directed by Jonathan Demme and screenplay by Ted Tally
- Book: The Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris
- Jurassic Park directed by Steven Spielberg and screenplay by Michael Crichton and David Koepp
- Book: Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton
Seven Great Adaptations
Not many people know that Forrest Gump was based on a book by Winston Groom. While the novel is a great read, the movie is even better. The script was great and Tom Hanks helped make this a classic movie that is beloved by millions. Groom’s novel has too much going on and would never have gotten signed off if it was based entirely on the book.
Another adaptation that was much better than the novel was House of the Dragon. A big reason for that is that the novel Fire and Blood by George R.R. Martin is supposed to read like a history book in Westeros. The show on the other hand goes in depth (with Martin’s help) and fleshes out scenes from the novel that aren’t as clear as to what happened.
Conclusion
What did you think of the 7 Adaptations That Are Better Than the Books list? Are there any other adaptations that deserve to be on the list? Let us know in the comments below and we may make this into a series!
I feel that way about World war Z by Max Brooks. However, it is not so much as “the book was better” or “the adaptation was better”, in this case I think the book makes the movie better as a companion guide to the movie.
My wife, who has read the Margaret Mitchell novel, thinks that “Gone With the Wind” was much better as a movie. Conversely, the sequel “Scarlet”, she thinks was infinitely superior in book form.
Hi! What about Ben-Hur, The exorcist, Psyco?
I would include The Godfather and take out Shawshank because that is basically a copy of the novella.