Page to screen by Eric Beetner

 What is a film adaptation that you believe is actually better than the original novel—and why?

Let me preface this by saying emphatically that I am not one of the “the book is always better” types. They are two different mediums and should be judged as such. Complaints about all the stuff that gets left out of an adaptation or disagreements with casting of roles is a futile and unworthy discussion. 

But you can judge the two mediums against each other. Is one more satisfying? More impactful? Does more with the core concept?

Two big ones are The Godfather and Jaws. Both massive best sellers in their day, both excellent stories at their centers. Both got film adaptations that surpass the source material.

The Godfather became more focused and personal once we could see the subtlety in the faces of the performances. What verged on caricature on the page, became nuanced and more human on screen.

Likewise with Jaws. A rather simple potboiler in novel form, the film version heightened the frights and the family in equal measure. 

Sometimes the drastic changes that can occur between source material and the screen can kill a movie version, or it can elevate it. John Carpenter’s The Thing is an adaptation of an adaptation and becomes the most successful of the trio. The original short story, Who Goes There? By John W Campbell Jr., is a fine and complex science fiction tale, but gets a rather radical overhaul on screen. The original adaptation, The Thing From Another World (1951) already takes liberties with the story and creates an effective thriller by 1951 standards. Carpenter’s reinterpretation is more paranoid, more intense, bloodier and bolder than the story, while retaining several key set pieces (the blood testing, the unexpected thaw of the creature). But if you’re seeking maximum thrills, go to the 1982 movie before the story.

I’m sure I won’t be the first to cite The Shawshank Redemption as a highly effective adaptation of a perfectly fine short story by Stephen King, but not one that hinted at the truly excellent film that would come of it. King has had more adaptations than any other modern writer and has a pretty low average of quality material, but when they work, they work exceptionally well. A few are also that rare case where they stand on equal footing, like Misery. Great book. Great film. Both tense and thrilling, both leave you fully satisfied. 

I think Jurassic Park edges out the novel by the sheer scope of it. Crichton likes his science talk and that can never compete with 80 foot dinosaurs lunging at us out of the darkness. And everything is made a little bit better with a John Williams score.

Oftentimes a dramatic interpretation of a non-fiction source can elevate the more academic prose of a historical account, say, into high drama that reaches more people. Take Band Of Brothers, the HBO series about WW2. Reading the true story is harrowing enough, but seeing it play out over a limited series with a sprawling cast brings it to life in a way most people would never get from a written account. Homicide: Life In The Streets let writer David Simon expand on his own true-life account of the street-level view of a crime-ridden city into something more expansive and dramatically complex.

Likewise Orange Is The New Black takes the true story of its protagonist and spins out an ensemble series that is larger and more satisfying than the book upon which it is based.

There are also examples of a series running past the plot of a novel and moving into original territory, with middling results. See The Handmaid’s Tale’s later seasons once they’d run out of book.  

The obverse of that trap is when the source material is merely a jumping off point. Elmore Leonard has had his share of film and TV adaptations, but none more successful than the series Justified which is based off a short story that doesn’t seem on its face to be enough to spin out into 6 seasons (and a reboot 7th season). By having the simple setup and open-ended possibility, it turned out to be the perfect property to adapt and gave us one of the all-time great TV characters and shows.

People will always take issue with this or that (“Cruise is too small to play Reacher!”) but even among the complaints you will find dedicated fans of adaptations. Die hard Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings fans will find quibbles with the films, but still own the box set and show up opening night for the next installment. 

Just remember, they can both exist independently of each other. Your love of one doesn’t diminish the quality of the other. It’s possible to love both for different reasons. And above all, don’t be a jerk about it. Let people love what they love.