We should start getting terrible books and turning them I to great movies. Bar is way lower.


The Poop that Took a Pee is going to be next year's summer blockbuster. Just you wait.


They gotta do Scrotty McBoogerballs first. You miss a lot context without it.


Do you think they could get Sarah Jessica Parker to play herself in it? She is mentioned quite a lot.


The Social Network. Based on the book The Accidental Billionaires, which is a hot trash fire.


Fincher is so good . Fight club. Social network. I'd argue the show mindhunters far superior to the book as well. Fuck you Netflix


Not to mention Sorkin achieving the impossible - writing Zuckerberg so well that he seems human


I mean it's hard to out-write Aaron Sorkin.


Die Hard


I only learned it was based on a book a year or so ago, perhaps from Movies with Mikey? IIRC the book didn't have any significant dialogue between John and Hans, but during the filming they found that Alan Rickman did a good American accent and used that as the way to get them together.


“Ohh! Oh god! You’re one of them!”


I’m of the opinion that Alan Rickman sounds exactly the same no matter what accent he is using. Same with John Malkovich.


Well, he is the Metatron, Herald of the Almighty, and Voice of the One True God.


Metatron acts as the voice of god. Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims that god has spoken to them, they’re speaking to me… Or they’re… talkin to themselves…


And built like a Ken Doll.


Myself, jay, and bob thank you for this comment


Yeah. Thinking about it that absolutely tracks Miss Him


I have a friend named Clay, and every time I hang out with him, I can't not think of the way Alan Rickman says, "Clay. Bill Clay".


Ok, but my dudes of all genders... Did you know who held the right of first refusal to star in *Die Hard*??? Ol' Blue Eyes himself, Frank A. Sinatra. That's right, Mr. I Did It My Way. Basically, *Die Hard* is adapted from a book that was itself a sequel. When the first book was made into a movie, Sinatra played the lead. So thanks to the magic of Hollywood contracts, if any other books in the series were adapted, Frankie was required to be offered the role. As he was nearing 70, he thought better of it and turned the offer down. Yippie Ki Yay, fam.




Yes! I think Spielberg told the author that all the characters in the book are so unlikeable, that by the end of it, he was rooting for the shark.


Didn’t Benchley end up regretting writing Jaws because it led to a mass culling of sharks with zero remorse?


Yup. And unlike the book, filming it made Spielberg hate the shark with the fury of a thousand suns.


Well Bruce was pretty hard to work with. Literally broke down everytime it got in the water.


Yeah I remember reading this real young and the whole affair bit was really..... Weird


Who has the affair?


Quint and the shark.


"I want to feel you inside me." -Bruce the shark


Hooper and Brody's wife. It is absolutely bonkers.


It’s more than just bonkers It’s just straight up smut for an eight of the book. It’s wild. It only helps set up the small amount of animosity Brody and hooper have later. Other than the affair I think the book is better though, it’s a great exploration of how one bad event can effect an entire town. The mayor is easier to stomach in the book though


1: I like how sleazy the mayor is in the movie. 2: That zoom dolly shot of Brody is magic. That certainly wasn't in the book.


What's equally good on the zoom dolly shot is the discordant sliding strings that accompany it. Just some more Williams genius.


Have you ever read The Godfather? There’s this whole plot thread about how Sonny’s wedding hookup has an oversized vagina and how she gets reconstructive surgery. How wild would it have been if they’d left that in the movie?!


Blockbuster novels in the 70s were sleazy AF


Way better movie.


Forrest Gump


He was such a jerk, I only made it half way through. My wife finished, and I didn't believe her about the boxing, monkey, and space travel.


Ever read the sequel book? Fuuuuuck.




The Gumpening


The third one is set in Japan: The Forrest and the Furious: Tokyo Shrimp


Didn't know there was one... and now that I know, nothing changes in my life or future plans. :)


Here is the first page of the actual book. I just wanted anyone who hasn’t seen this before to get a clear idea of what we mean in this thread. https://i.imgur.com/8BRVuyu.jpg


Omg lol. But can you imagine what genius it took for Roth to read this and think: “hmm, I can make a masterpiece screenplay out of it...”


"just throw out the book and keep the name and general idea"


On the next page, “There was this kid named Craig. He had Down syndrome so bad, he had up, left, and right syndrome too!”


Thats actually a hilarious insult.


The book sounds like such a mess kudos to the filmmakers for polishing a turd into a diamond


Came here to say this. The book is just terrible.


This was my immediate reaction when I read the meme. Imagine fitting in going to space with a monkey because he hit a politician in the head with his award, crash landing in a jungle where he learns to play chess, being a pro wrestler and wrestling a dude covered in shit, and so on and so on and so on.


Forrest Gump the book isn't a bad book. It's just knowingly over the top and completely bonkers. It would have been totally unworkable as a direct film. It's extremely episodic and each chapter feels like a weird fever dream. Weirdly enough, it would have worked in a film made in the 60s and 70s, not a film about the 60s and 70s.


Who Framed Roger Rabbit


So much better that the author retconned the first book into a dream in the second, and made the characters match the film.


There are books?


"Who Censored Roger Rabbit" was really a bizarre read...


[in case you don't want to read the book](https://youtu.be/UAYqK15hlbI)


“How to Train Your Dragon”. The author, Cressida Cowell, even says so.


The books are cute, but the movies are better.


God the second movie was so good from an audio/visual perspective. I remember looking at the ice and snow and *feeling* how cold it must be. Changed the way I think about animation entirely.


and the voice acting. dammit, listening to Gerard Butler's "You are as beautiful as the day I lost you" had me tearing up.


I ugly cried in the theater. The trilogy is one of the best children's animated stories that's ever come out, and I will die on that hill. The story, character development, the animation, everything is just beautifully done.


In a similar vain, Shrek.


The original book was as much a parody of common fairy tale tropes as the movie eventually was, albeit in a completely different direction. In the book, Shrek was the mockery for being a hideous ogre who solved every problem with violence (fire breath, laser vision, general cruelty); in the film, Shrek was the straight man to the fairytale weirdness around him, though he eventually found himself playing into it later on when he got his true happy ending.


TIL Shrek was originally a book


Man, I was looking for this one. We had some of her books in the series I found them unreadable.


Which part was unreadable? Not disagreeing, its just been years I and I want to hear your two cents. I have no strong opinion either way


It’s also been years for me, but from what I remember they were just serviceable kid’s books. Definitely not unreadable.


I think my biggest issue with them from recollection, was the sidekick character Fishlegs. In these type stories, usually the best friend/sidekick character either has some different skill to the protagonist, or at least a contrasting personality to bounce off of; so usually they might be either super strong but rather dim, smart/nerdy but weak, or charismatic/comical and easygoing. Fishlegs however is basically just… hiccup but worse. He’s also a weakling who isn’t cut out to be a traditional viking, but Hiccup is the one who got all the brains and cunning. I just wish they picked a unique direction for his character and leaned into it more. I like what they did with him as a side character in the movie though


I thought his likeness to Hiccup in the books was intentional, following the overarching “Don’t hold yourself to others expectations” theme of the series (like Toothless being the least powerful, most garden-variety type of dragon). Just like Hiccup was the unlikely Viking hero, using his brains and emotions instead of brawn and stoicism to save the day, Fishlegs was the even-more-unlikely hero who used his mediocrity and likeness to save Hiccup. Yeah usually the side character is an opposite archetype, but that’s also a really overdone trope. Having similarities to another character is necessary to derive a sense of comparison


I tried them as an Audiobook read by David Tennant, because he read it with his original Scottish Accent. but the books were just... idk... different. Toothless was a small swamp dragon, I think. Not the Night dragon. The plot was, that they were actually really training dragons from the beginning, not training to fight them. It turned out to be basically the same level of book to movie adaptation that they did with "Howl's Moving Castle" or the "Percy Jackson" movies. Which means: the same character names, completely different story. The only difference is, that in the Percy Jackson books I was actually able to read them and with Howl's Moving Castle (and the following books) the story is actually leagues better and with HttyD, not even Tennant's beautiful accent and reading talent (he really poured his soul into it) could make it bearable to me. It was a shame, because I wanted to listen more to him, but the HttyD books were just not my thing.


The books were kind of bonkers, I'll give you that. I loved that they were bonkers though.


Fight club for sure. Fun book, do doubt. But the movie just killed.


Chuck himself says he likes the movie better


You guys should read Choke, that books fuckin wild


loved Choke the book, the movie was not great


After reading the short story Guts, I am taking a decade long break LMAO


I swear that book was nothing but taking leaps at disturbing people. I thought Rant, which also has some disturbing stuff, was at least just a fucked up character, not just throwing disturbing stuff at the reader for the sake of it.


The definitive proof that the movie is better


Glad this is the top comment thus far. The book and movie were incredibly similar, but Fincher, Pitt, Norton and the rest of the cast just elevated it to masterpiece levels.


it helps that the book is so short that they didn't have to cut like anything at all.


Would have loved to see Tyler's other jobs, especially the madam going batshit after he pissed in one of her dozens of perfume bottles. Also there's a few more scenes in the office where the narrator talks to his co-workers. Omg, and Marla's moms fat!!!


Yep, changing the ending was the right choice


Who wouldn't want to watch ed norton shove pills up his ass?


Book ending: Destroy all museums and society will collapse because... Culture? Or something?


Yes. The book is a gem in the rough. Lots of weird and wonderful ideas, and a uniquely sardonic tone. But it's pretty sloppy. Even Palahniuk himself agrees the movie is far better.


Here we go again… all these mf’s forgetting the first rule


I may be crazy, but I prefer the movie version of The Princess Bride.


there really is something so special about what the actors put into the characters


that being said, anyone who is a fan of the movie should read the book. I wouldn't put the movie or the book as better, they are both just different. Love both


They complement each other so well. The only book/movie combo where discrepancies add to the context. If you like one, try both. Its even better.


I came to say this as well. I don’t find one better than the other but they compliment each other and add depth. For example the sword fight scene. Not knowing a thing about sword play I wouldn’t have been able to see what I was reading but having seen the movie I was.


The movie is basically the version of the story his grandfather told him... cleaner, less complicated, and with a happier ending. It's perfect if you see the movie first and then go seek out the book, because then you have a shared experience with the narrator (Goldman) when finding out that the original S. Morganstern story isn't *quite* the same as the fairy tale you remember.


Very similar, book and screenplay written by the same dude, if anyone’s wondering.


I like the backstory of Inigo and Fezzik better in the book, as well as the ending. But I completely understand why people like the movie better! *Edit - autocorrect butchered a name


I just wish the movie feature the Zoo of Death.


The fight scenes between the man in black and both Fezzik and Inigo are great in the books. Since we can hear their thoughts we get a better picture of how he is able to defeat them both, despite them actually being better in their particular fields.


I preferred the framing device of the movie over the book. With the book I was confused thinking I had the wrong book and this was just a guy who really liked the original.


Took me like ten years to realize that was intended




You keep using that word...


They two are very very similar, almost like it was imagined as a screenplay first and adapted to a novel afterward. I have watched the movie countless times, but only read the novel once.


It's probably not a coincidence that Goldman was first and foremost known as a screenwriter.


I often see this opinion online though I'm partial to the book. Pretty sure that the medium experienced first influences the perception of the next one.


The princess bride is my favorite book of all time! I could not put it down. I’m shocked that people that have read the book like the movie more.


Children of Men


The miracle ceasefire is still one of the most quietly powerful scenes I've seen in a film.


The entire single shot scene is a masterpiece and a mini-film in itself.


All three of the extra long takes in that movie are incredible. It feels impossible not to be moved by each one. And a little detail I love about the movie is how everytime Theo tries to light a cigarette, he fails or is interrupted. Its like the world never gives him a break, or an oppprtunity to shut it all out for a moment.


I was still smoking two packs a day when it came out and I noticed that so hard. I think every smoker or ex smoker noticed it and it really hit the empathy button.


The Godfather.


I had to scroll further than I thought I would need to to find this comment. The godfather is one of the greatest movies ever made, the book… well 1/3 of it is this weird gross love story between a young woman and her obgyn doctor. Francis Ford Coppola though it was “low-class” to have that as a third of the book [NPR interview with FFC](https://www.npr.org/2021/01/01/952279387/to-make-the-godfather-his-way-francis-ford-coppola-waged-a-studio-battle)


The book spends so much time telling us about Sonny's giant dick. The book contains everything in The Godfather, and most of Part 2, but it's also full of pulpy bullshit that Coppola chopped.


And the only giant vag that could take it.


“The canoe”


There’s only a small nod to his big knob in the wedding scene in the movie.


Small Nod and his Big Knobs is my band name


I read that book when I was a virgin and his dick kind of made me nervous


>that Coppola chopped. Coppola was a part of the process (obviously, he was the director) but Mario Puzo used the screenplay as an opportunity to cut out a lot of things he didn't like in his original publishing. He was more responsible for the changes between book and movie than Coppola was.


I loved the book, but yeah that whole side story felt really unnecessary and seriously messed with the pacing.


I enjoyed "The 13th Warrior" more than the book it was based on: "Eaters of the Dead" by Michael Crichton. The book spends a lot of time on culture, language, and historical references; it reads more like a documentary, which was the point. The movie strips the story down to its core and plays like a saga. And Ibn Fadlan was more of a scoundrel in the book. Movie Ibn Fadlan (Banderas) is well-meaning but naive; a much more likeable character. I also thought that the film makes the northmen more distinct and memorable.


This is a good answer because the movie is so amazing and it is somewhat underrated


This is one of the most underrated movies of my lifetime!


Also arguably the best Viking based movies of all time. Desperately underrated film.


Yes! However, I still can barely watch when they are spitting and blowing their noses into the community bowl! UGH!


Where did you learn our language? I listened!


Honestly one of the coolest scenes in any film. Really well done visualization of what language learning feels like.


That was such a great shortcut, IMO. IIRC, in the book he never fully learned their language, but he gradually picked up enough to get by. And it made sense in the film because he was a poet, so he'd understand how language works and could piece it together.


Fun Fact: A lot of people don't realize that 'Eaters if the Dead' is fully original and not based on ancient writing as depicted in the book. The Library of Congress still has to send out dozens of letters each year explaining this to people requesting a copy of or information on the ancient manuscript.


Agreed. I'd also say Jurassic Park. Crichton can sure dream up a great story but I nearly put that book down because of Ian Malcolm. Almost missed the movie in theaters. But damn did Jeff Goldblum bring some much needed life to that character.


My mom says that the movie Dances with Wolves was better than the book.


In fairness, it was written as a movie first but nobody wanted the script so the writer turned it into a book to help sell the script.


I liked Blade Runner better than the Phillip K Dick novel 'Do androids dream of electric sheep' which it is based on. They are very different stories however. Blade runner is the action mystery of a man trying to track down a group of murderous replicants only to discover that they had some humanity and begin to empathize with them at the end. Much of the best content is improvised. The tears in the rain soliloquy is one of my favorite scenes in cinema and was not in the script. The original written novel was a roughly 200 page novel about a jaded human contractor who did everything in his power to be as unhuman as possible including using technology to change his mood when he wasn't in a mood he liked. He was the epitome of the negative aspects of humanity. He was envious of his neighbors and their pets because he could only afford an electric pet. The replicants by contrast were physically synthetic but contained more empathy and subjective humanity than the protagonist. Both are good. I just enjoyed the Harrison Ford movie more.


I agree with almost everything you said. But one slight correction, as it’s a pet peeve of mine that people misrepresent the "Tears in rain" improv story. [Yes, Roy Betty’s speech is in the script](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue). Peoples wrote it, but Rutger Hauer reworked it and was able to present his revised speech. Hauer used his version, without Ridley Scott’s knowledge, but everyone loved it, so that’s the take they used.


Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know. The "tears in the rain" line seems like hauers but yeah, the most important part, the feels of it are present. Imo that line is basically why I think blade runner 2049 was never going to live up to the original. I love when a moment in a film elevates it to the next level like that.


I'm a giant fan of blade runner (read the book, watched all cuts of the movies, played the cd-rom game through on multiple occasions) and I have to say that I really thought 2049 was a worthy successor. In many ways, it was much more engaging than even the original. But obviously that is just my opinion.


i usually find that whichever one i experience first ends up being my favorite. so when i get around to the other version it just seems all wrong.


Shawshank Redemption, The Shining, Forrest Gump, Broke back Mountain, No Country for Old Men, American Psycho, Blade Runner, hell even Les Miserables and Hunchback of Notre Dame. Silence of the Lambs, Psycho, The Notebook. Stand By Me. I'd argue that the Outsiders is better as a film.


The Hunchback of Notre Dame is debatable. Is it easier to get through the movie as a whole? For sure. But there are a LOT of tone problems and inconsistencies with the movie too. I have such a love-hate relationship with it.


Disney's Hunchback is much like Quasimodo himself. In that it has a beautiful soul, but suffers from structural issues.


I prefer the shining book. However I agree with the rest.


No Country for Old Men was just as good as a movie. But if you dig McCarthy’s style, you can’t beat his books. The movie was so good because it stayed so true to the book, especially dialogue.


They can’t make Blood Meridian and they shouldn’t try. It’s my favourite work of modern fiction and that’s saying a lot cos I read like a motherfucker. I know it may be in the works but there’s no way it’ll hold up. That book is a behemoth of a western, it’d have to be a three hour plus film and slow as fuck. A slow, hot, bloody, fever dream.


I’ve read this multiple times, and I oscillate between “wow, this is the most beautiful prose ever written and these characters are extraordinary” and shaking my head like “….what are we doing here man?”


Blade runner is tenuously linked to do androids dream they aren’t really comparable


I agree, this is the right answer. That's not really what the story is about, the story is about a dystopian future where humans have lost their essential humanity in a sea of misery, despair, ennui, and require mind altering machines to even feel. The movie is a weird sci-fi about robots.


Les Mis? Really? hopefully not the live action one that came out recently... which one?


Was thinking this lol what an insult to one of the great novels, maybe they're referring to the play?


Disagree about No Country. Think the book and film are about equal. Have the same opinion about Clockwork Orange and Coraline.


Outsiders is a non-standard answer but I like it. Sounds like in general you have a problem with horror books... Any that you like?


I love the Shawshank redemption. I have almost every book Stephen King ever wrote (many in first edition) and that was my all-time favorite story. It’s probably the only story that made me cry every time I finished it. When they said they were making the movie I was so worried they were going to screw it up because it was so important to me as a story. they didn’t screw it up! It was an amazing wonderful movie. But it still wasn’t as good as the book. Sorry to say that.


The Prestige Casino Royale Drive Dr. Sleep


The Prestige book was odd. The first part felt a lot like the movie and then it diverged wildly. I can see why they changed it.


I dunno I like Dr. Sleep book version much better, it really let you know how evil Rose the Hat was, and I was rooting for Danny to stay sober and not end up like his dad so hard.


Drive was a terrible book, good call.


Coraline. The book is good but the movie adds some new things that flesh it out a little better. Even Gaiman said that he thinks the film improved on the source material.


Stardust! I love Neil Gaiman but it wasn't his best book. The movie was amazing with a stellar cast


>Stardust >stellar cast This check out.


Was about to comment this too. Book was good, but the movie was just better. It had a climax that the book just lacked.


Take a look at the series "lost in adaptation" by Dominic Noble. He covers movies and shows derived from literary works. Generally he has the opinion that the book is usually better, but a decent number of items he's actually said the movie was better because at least it did the premise better than the book. Also, Folding Ideas makes a good case for 50 Shades of Gray being better than the book (and this being a large part of the reason the director and writer effectively got booted for the sequels).


Stardust, both are good but the movie flushes out some story elements


As someone who has made this mistake, the phrase in this context is "fleshes out".


I am a bit stoned right now so I am not surprised


nice i do enjoy some bone apple tea


The Hunt For Red October. The book was really great but the movie was freaking awesome.


I was thinking about this one, but for me, it's basically a tie. I love them both.


When I step on the pedal to my EV, I'll sometimes say "engage the silent drive!" In my best Scottish-Russisn accent https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/894fb623-e641-4a23-8d9b-b1767254f067


Trainspotting, I think, because I give up after the first page everytime lol


One of the few books that I’ve read with a dictionary/translation section. Fucking LOVED the book tho.


I wrote a 20 page paper on it and Irvine Welsh’s “Weltanschauung” like 20 years ago? Whenever I put the book down for any period of time I had to pick it back up by reading out loud. I like the book better, it’s not one cohesive story.


Jurassic Park, as a book, is a very different story and would not have worked on film. In a lot of ways its closer to some scientific document sometimes than it is a story. Jurassic Park as a movie makes changes that made it a much better story for the big screen. I can’t say which version is better or worse, but both are excellent in their medium.


I felt like Jurassic Park the book would make a good HBO series. Dr. Ian Malcolm is much more likeable in the movie. The book Dr. Malcolm begins to feel like Michael Crichton's vessel for pontificating.


As a former software dev, i was rooting for book nedry


Man they really sanitized his death in the movie. The "raptors" (deinonychus) really mess people up with those claws in the book. *Edit: Nedry is killed by a dilophosaurus* I felt the more villainous version of Hammond in the book works better with the story. Though I did appreciate Crichton changed Lex from being just an annoying little sister and basically useless character.


> I felt the more villainous version of Hammond in the book works better with the story. I think this is the major downside of the JP movie, which otherwise definitely does take the book's story and make it a lot more palpable. But essentially downplaying and removing the corporate greed element that played heavily ion the book by making Hammond a good guy in the movie is a huge loss imo. I certainly like him in the movie but, that's kind of the point yeah? He's likeable. In the book it's clear that this dude is about pushing a product and making money, obvious issues be damned. "Spared no expense" is clearly bullshit in the book, but in the movie they didn't hammer home enough that it's empty rhetoric and that, in fact, expense was absolutely spared - at the inevitable cost of people's lives.


In a way it kind of was in a roundabout way. The original Westworld movie was written and directed by Crichton. He lifted many of the events and themes from that (man’s overconfidence in science leading to the feature attractions of a theme park running amok etc.) when he wrote the Jurassic Park novel, but made it dinosaurs instead of androids. Of course the modern remake of Westworld was an HBO series.


This is always my pick. I like the book. I *love* the movie


"The Mist" from 2007 It generally followed the plot of the novella pretty closely but then deviated wildly at the ending. After screening the film the author himself, known publicly as Stephen King, conceded that the film's ending was superior to the one he had written in the book.


“Known publicly as Stephen King…” His real name is Stephen Edwin King…what are you talking about? Richard Bachman?


I'm going to start introducing myself with "Known Publicly as . " It sounds delightfully both pretentious and eccentric, with the right amount of satire.


"I keep thinking it's Sunday" "It is Sunday" "I know. That's why I keep thinking it."


He's known publicly as Stephen King because his name is Stephen King. Try and keep up maaaate.


I feel like Stephen King's work is always going to have some glaring flaws, because, as I understand it, his process is to just *fuckin' goooo!* "Five hundred pages! One week! It's done, print it!" "Okay, Stephen, but what about this whole thing with the guy in the cabin. Seems like a big plot hole, should we go back and-" "What the fuck are you talking about, Larry? I've already forgotten that book! Here's another three hundred pages! Sorry it's so short, I broke my hand and had to write with my dick. Print it!" Probably a better process than agonizing over every detail and never getting your book to print.




So coked out he doesn’t even remember *writing and directing* Maximum Overdrive.


Same with Cujo. He claims he was drinking so heavily that he really doesn’t remember writing it. Which is basically the most savage humble brag for a writer. “Hey, I was completely fucked up and still wrote an award winning novel.”


Stephen King had the ability to distill cocaine into celluloid, and that movie is the result. There were no actors, or sets, or cameras - just cocaine rendered into film.


it was all CG - Cocaine Graphics


In his book, ‘On Writing’, King talks about how his first edit usually cuts his first draft IN HALF. I can’t imagine how long the original drafts of some of his novels could have been. I have a hard time reading him, my mind tends to wander. His shorter novels and short stories are usually okay though, and the ones I can get through, I enjoy.


I seem to recall him mentioning that some critics have accused him of "diarrhea of the typewriter", and that it's not exactly an unfair criticism.


Yeah, he doesn't storyboard, he doesn't plan, he just puts to paper whatever comes to mind. If after 600+ pages he finds he wrote himself into a corner, welp, looks like the hand of God is gonna have to step in to Deus ex machina this situation (sometimes literally!)! I remember reading one of his books and being asked what it's about and my answer was "it's a Stephen King book and I'm only 60 pages in, I know the favorite songs, books and colors of the three main characters, but have no idea where it's going yet". I love how he creates a world that pulls you in. I hate that the endings are usually .... Subpar is what I'll go with. Definitely enjoy them enough to continue reading more of his books though.


The passion of the Christ is way better than reading the bible.


The Devil Wears Prada and Forest Gump


I was scrolling for Devil Wears Prada. I hated the novel but it’s one of my favorite movies.


Practical Magic


Last of the Mohicans Ben Hur (Charlton Heston version) Shrek


Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep / Blade Runner is a very close call


They are so different that they barely feel like the same story.


Not a movie, but my wife said Station Eleven the TV show was better than the book. I watched the show and thought it was amazing and wanted her to watch it, she insisted on reading the book first, and she loved it but after seeing the show she said she could have skipped the book.


Last of the Mohicans. Hugh! The book is almost unreadable, RustyCutlass ejaculated!!


I had to read that shit in high school. When my teacher explained that Cooper was paid by the word, it all made sense. Movie was pretty good, music was 10/10.