Is the Book Always Better Than the Movie? 

For Authors

We’ve all watched a movie adaptation of a book we love, only to walk away shaking our heads, muttering that “the book was better”. It happens so often that it feels like an unshakable truth—and as authors, let’s be honest, there’s a little satisfaction in knowing that a novel’s depth and nuance are hard to replicate on screen. But every now and then, a film or TV show not only gets it right but actually improves on its source material, capturing the essence of a book while also fixing its flaws.

Writers spend countless hours crafting intricate worlds, shaping unforgettable characters, and fine-tuning every detail—so why do some stories translate brilliantly to film while others lose some of their magic? And perhaps more importantly, what can authors learn from these successes and failures? With the small screen version of Reacher returning for Season 3 this week, there is no better time for Ginger to dig into which factors make a book-to-screen transition work, and which cause them to fall apart.

This week, Season 3 of Reacher hits screens on Amazon Prime, and I’m just one of millions of fans eager to start watching. The show is such a good adaption of the books upon which they were based – starring the towering Alan Ritchson as the huge Jack Reacher, and methodically translating the twists and turns of each story so that they hold true to the original.

But this wasn’t always the case. When the Jack Reacher books were first adapted for cinema, they fell far short of expectations. 2012’s Jack Reacher and 2016’s Jack Reacher: Never Go Back were both solid, enjoyable thrillers, but leading star Tom Cruise (who stands just 5’ 7”) literally came up short by trying to play a character whose whole identity stems from towering a foot taller than most people. 

It’s interesting to compare the television, movie, and book adaptions of Reacher because it soon becomes clear which aspects worked and which didn’t. The success of the television show over the movies demonstrates how remaining true to the source material generally delivers a more satisfying watching experience – especially for fans of the original.

Which leads many people to assume that every adaption falls short – and “the book is better” is a hard and fast rule. After all, authors craft worlds, build characters, and weave intricate plots that resonate with readers – and something magical about them is always lost when those beloved narratives are translated into the visual language of cinema. But is this truly the case?

I’d argue that the “book is better” mantra is generally fueled by a sense of betrayal. Readers invest deeply in the world of a novel, forming personal interpretations of characters and settings, so when a film adaptation deviates from these interpretations, it can feel like a violation. Changes to plot, character arcs, or even the tone of the story can leave readers feeling disappointed and alienated.

In my case, a good example was the movie adaption of The Dark Tower by Stephen King. I guess it would have been an enjoyable enough movie on its own, but because it ignored so much of the epic lore of Stephen King’s seven book saga, I felt utterly disappointed by the experience of watching it. Comparing the movie to the book series would be impossible – it would be like comparing The Very Hungry Caterpillar to The Lord of the Rings.

And while The Dark Tower was at least fun to watch, sometimes the movie adaptions of your favorite books are simply… bad. Poor acting, cheap special effects, and a rushed production can turn a beloved story into a cinematic disaster and make you feel even more betrayed about what the movie producers have done.

To quote one famous book-to-movie adaption: “Look how they’ve massacred my boy!”

But I think the reality of “the book is better” is far more nuanced. Sometimes, the silver screen can actually enhance a story, addressing shortcomings in the original text and creating a more compelling experience.

Goldfinger: A Case Study in Improvement

Like with everything else in life, I can turn this back around to James Bond. Take Ian Fleming’s Goldfinger as a great example of a time the movie was better than the book.

The seventh novel in the James Bond series by Ian Fleming, first published in 1959, Goldfinger is very far from Ian Fleming’s best book. Don’t get me wrong – it’s a cracking read and one of my personal favorites (but favorite doesn’t mean best.) Looking at the book through the lens of a writer, I’d argue it contains certain fantastical elements that strain credulity. For example, when Goldfinger discovers Bond’s true identity, he inexplicably recruits him as his personal secretary. The “hero working for the bad guy” has become a trope of the genre, but in this case it just seemed like Fleming wrote himself into a corner and this was the best way he could think of to keep Bond alive and close to Goldfinger’s plot.

And Goldfinger’s plot is the other shortcoming of the story. His scheme to physically steal the gold from Fort Knox is, to put it mildly, wildly implausible – involving nuclear bombs, trains, and a Soviet submarine. To read a James Bond book requires a certain suspension of disbelief, but this time Fleming took it just a smidge too far.

But the film adaptation, released in 1964, directed by Guy Hamilton, and starring Sean Connery, significantly improved upon these elements. Goldfinger’s recruitment of Bond was eliminated, and the plot was ingeniously changed to irradiating the gold with a nuclear bomb, rendering it worthless instead of stealing it.

The film even includes a scene in which Bond explicitly outlines the impossibility of physically stealing the gold, acknowledging and addressing the book’s inherent flaw. This adaptation, by grounding the story in a more believable reality, created a far more engaging and satisfying experience for viewers and is often viewed as the “best” of the classic James Bond movies, which is certainly not something fans of the books would argue.

Books That Outshone Their Cinematic Counterparts

Now, while Goldfinger is far from the only example of a movie being better than the book upon which it was based, it does seem like “the book is better” is at least statistically more accurate. Despite the occasional success story, there are countless examples where the book remains the superior experience.

1. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand: For decades people have wanted to adapt Ayn Rand’s controversial magnum opus to the silver screen, and in 2011 they got their chance. A trilogy of films, directed by various individuals and starring Taylor Schilling, Grant Bowler, and Kristoffer Polaha (among others) was widely panned – and not because they weren’t slavishly loyal to Rand’s massive book. Instead, the movies were criticized for their low production values, wooden acting, and inability to capture the philosophical depth of Rand’s sprawling novel. The complex themes and intricate character development were reduced to simplistic caricatures, leaving both fans and critics deeply disappointed. Plus, the cast changed almost completely from one movie to the next, making the trilogy seem wildly disjointed.
2. The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne: The 1995 adaptation, directed by Roland Joffé and starring Demi Moore, Gary Oldman, and Robert Duvall, took significant liberties with the source material, transforming a tragic tale of societal oppression into a romantic melodrama. The film’s focus on sensationalism and its departure from the book’s core themes alienated many readers who valued the original’s psychological depth and moral complexity.  
3. The Shining by Stephen King: Stephen King is going to appear in this article a lot, because his books have been adapted into some of the worst and best examples I could possibly write about. Some, like The Children of the Corn and its sequels, are almost too easy to target, so I’ll make a more controversial choice. While Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 adaptation, starring Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall, is a cinematic masterpiece, it deviates significantly from King’s novel and I think the experience of reading the book is superior to watching the movie. King himself has expressed dissatisfaction with the film’s portrayal of Jack Torrance and its overall interpretation of the story. The book’s focus on psychological horror and the gradual descent into madness is replaced in the film with a more stylized and ambiguous approach, which, while visually stunning, misses key elements of the book’s narrative.  

Movies That Surpassed Their Literary Origins

Conversely, there are instances where the cinematic adaptation transcends the limitations of the source material.

1. The Godfather by Mario Puzo: Directed by Francis Ford Coppola and starring Marlon Brando and Al Pacino, the film is widely considered a cinematic masterpiece, even surpassing Puzo’s already excellent novel. The film’s masterful direction, powerful performances, and iconic score elevated the story to a level of cinematic artistry that resonated with audiences worldwide. The movie added a level of visual story telling and iconic performances that solidified its place in cinema history.
   
2. Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk: David Fincher’s 1999 adaptation, starring Edward Norton and Brad Pitt, captured the anarchic energy and satirical tone of Palahniuk’s novel while adding its own visual flair. The film’s striking visuals and thought-provoking themes resonated with a generation, cementing its status as a cult classic. Fincher brought the novels chaotic and fractured narrative to life with a very visually impacting style.
   
3. The Shawshank Redemption by Stephen King: Here’s another Stephen King example. Directed by Frank Darabont and starring Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, the film is considered by many to be superior to King’s novella, Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. The film’s heartfelt performances, inspiring themes, and emotional resonance transformed a simple prison story into a timeless tale of hope and redemption. Darabont took the core story and built a film that pulls at the audience’s heart strings in a way that is hard to forget. Reading the short story is a great experience, but it can’t rival the emotional impact of watching the film.
   

Value for Self-Published Authors

So, what’s my point with all this? Well, I think this exploration of book-to-film adaptations provides invaluable insights for self-published authors. By analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of both mediums, we can gain a deeper understanding of storytelling principles. Comparing two versions of the “same” story allows us to view possible plot holes, or character inconsistencies that may have been overlooked during the writing process.

Understanding how different mediums interpret and adapt stories can help us identify potential pitfalls in our own stories, and help refine our craft. After all, many of us dream of one day seeing our books adapted for the big screen – so maybe we should strive to improve our writing as if we’re about to pen the screenplay adaption. 

So, what are your thoughts on the whole “the book is better” argument? Do you agree with the examples I chose? Are there other book-to-film adaptations that you believe are worthy of comparison? I would love to hear what you have to say in the comments section below.

Share this blog

About the Author