The screenplay for the Princess Bride was written by the writer of the book iirc and just seems like a later draft of the same story but edited to be much better. And with the added bonus of having absolutely iconic performances.
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
82 points (89.4% liked)
movies
1234 readers
227 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
I have to disagree on this one. I loved the movie then immediately read the book, whereupon I discovered that as good as I'd found the movie, the book was even better. While I've ended up seeing the movie several times (when it happens to air), I've only reread the book once, but the book was, is, and will always be superior.
I can't tell if you're making a very subtle joke with a straight face and your tongue in your cheek or if you really haven't actually read the book. The irony is just fucking delicious. I prefer S. Morgenstern's original text.
I prefer Hitchcock's 'Rear Window' to the original short story it was based on, 'It Had to Be Murder'. Not that the latter is bad, I just think some of the things the film is able to do like the slower pacing and neighbourhood ambience helps us experience the world from Jeff's (Hal's) perspective and that goes a long way to building suspense later in the film. You feel like you're trapped in there alongside him in the film, whereas the book is recounted in past-tense so it's a lesser secondhand feeling of suspense.
V for Vendetta.
The original graphic novel is good, but very dated to the feel of the Thatcher years.
The film has aged a lot better and it smoothed out the pacing, making it much more enjoyable IMO.
I agree. I read the comics after the movie and while I enjoyed them, imo the movie was better.
What Dreams May Come. I love the movie. Could barely make it through the book.
The film makes substantial changes to the ending and some of the main plot though. The novel makes no mention of credit card companies, and the film ending is an atrocity.
Edit: this was supposed to be for the comment thread about Fight Club but apparently posted independently. Apologies for the confusion.
Which one?
How is Lord of the rings not on this list?
The Peter Jackson films weren't an attempt at a 1:1 recreation of what Tolkien was trying to do with his book trilogy. You could argue that the films are a better representation of the core story, but the books are iconic for a lot more than their core story and that makes this kind of direct comparison more challenging.
Jurassic Park the novel is superior to the film, and by a large margin. People who say this are either viewing the movie through a nostalgia filter or haven't read the book.
One thing in particular that is obnoxious about the film is the messy themes. The book critiques capitalism just as much as irresponsible scientists, which is completely lost in the movie. Movie John Hammond is practically the good guy and suffers no consequences, which is makes it feel like borderline capitalist propaganda.
Having just rewatched Jurassic Park the other night for the first time since I was about 6 years old, my takeaway was mostly that the park needed a total overhaul of their EH&S department. Probably every single death was avoidable with less than a day's work to prevent it, starting with the very first scene when they release a raptor into the enclosure. That guy's death could have been avoided by simply
- Installing some rings into the posts on either side of the gate, and securing the shipping container to them to prevent unplanned movement of the container.
- Attaching some support posts to the rear of the container that would dig into the ground, rather than letting the container shift backwards.
- Have a pulley rigged up over the gate that could hook into the top of the door on the container, allowing the crew to lift open the container's door from a safe distance.
And that's literally the first scene. The entire main plot could have been avoided by not permitting a design with so many single points of failure, like only one individual being able to shut down critical safety systems without any additional oversight, and seemingly no fallback systems to account for either incompetent or malicious actors on the island.----
Probably every single death was avoidable with less than a day's work to prevent it
This is where I disagree with the idea that Hammond's culpability as a representative of capitalism was downplayed. He keeps saying "We spared no expense" but basically every problem is because they spared many expenses. Sure, they spent money on the little luxury details to make it an attractive park, but they overlooked or cheaped out on everything that wasn't directly part of the value stream.
load more comments
(3 replies)
While not a book, The Boys tv show is vastly better than the original comics it’s based on.
That's because the original comic is pure Garth Ennis trash. It's just edgy for edginess sake with nothing to actually say beyond "celebrity culture bad".
The show still has an edginess problem, but it is much better and has a more or less coherent viewpoint.
In fact I think you'd be hard pressed to find any film/show or maybe any adaptation in any media that's more Superior to its source material than the boys.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The Shawshank Redemption - a good book (Stephen King) made into a richer and more complete movie. In my opinion, so few of King's stories were better on the screen than the original writing.
Imo also Edge of Tomorrow. All You Need Is Kill is good, but the alien is so goofy and the ending is kinda mid, and no real ending to the war. Edge of Tomorrow kinda fixed that. I also love how they handle the crew Cage first met and fight along instead of let them be fodder.
So underrated/underappreciated this film I think! Pacey, funny, smart with an existential threat and Tom Cruise playing humble. Emily Blunt is perfect and Bill Paxton has a great time.
Yeah, it's action packed and with great pacing, really show off the premise well.
There's an anime based on the manga coming soon too!
load more comments
(2 replies)
Starship Troopers
But mostly because it isn't really based on the book at all. Paul Verhoeven famously tried to read the book, got immediately bored and decided to make it his own thing.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk, perhaps? Not that it's a bad book by any means, and the idea is superb, but the execution isn't quite so great - it was his first published novel. The film is exceptional, though.
I read that Palahniuk prefers the ending in the movie.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I found the novel Jurassic Park to be superior to the movie though I enjoyed both. They were just different.
Idk I quite liked the book Jurassic Park, moreso than the movie I think but tbf it is a great movie too.
At 13 years old, I finished the book on the way to watch the movie. I had been reading it for a few weeks. Great book. Imo, they're too close for me to judge which is better.
Yeah, I was surprised by this one, the book is great! The movie is great. They're both great for what they are. The movie isn't better.
No Country For Old Men was such a masterpiece that it managed to be better than the book, which is a feat given it was written by Cormac McCarthy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›