The book is always better than the movie. Except when it isn’t.
In general, books are better than the films they inspire; however, some movies transcend their source material. For example:
- Jaws
- The Godfather
- Some Stephen King: Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption, The Running Man, Carrie, The Shining, etc.
- The Andromeda Strain
- The Princess Bride
- Election
- The Phillip K. Dick stuff: Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report
- Field of Dreams
- Forrest Gump
- L.A. Confidential
- Like Water For Chocolate
- Being There
These are the examples that occur to me immediately; I’m sure there are many others.
There’s also a significant body of excellent films made from excellent books. (These often become personal favorites of mine.)
- Fight Club
- Jurassic Park
- Pride and Prejudice
- The Remains of the Day
- To Kill a Mockingbird
- The Joy Luck Club
- Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
- Gone With the Wind
- A Clockwork Orange
- A River Runs Through It
- Rebecca
- The Pianist
I know that many people actually prefer the Lord of the Rings films to the books. While this boggles my mind, I accept that such a large body of opinion cannot be discounted.
I’ve intentionally not listed cases in which I consider both the film and the movie bad (e.g. Girl With a Pearl Earring; Chocolat; many MIchael Crichton stories, such as Congo; many Stephen King stories, such as Pet Sematary).
I’ve also not listed instances in which I suspect the film is better than the book, but haven’t been exposed to one of them (e.g. Sideways, The Silence of the Lambs).
The next time somebody complains that the book is always better than the movie, remind them that it’s not always the case.
You think the Running Man movie is better than the book? Yikes.