I haven't seen or read Jaws, but I believe you all

Fight Club. Even the author watched the film and admitted he was almost embarrassed by the book afterwards.

Dune as a Greek tragedy is actually a very interesting thought.

My personal interpretation about why Dune was written that way is that Herbert is showing the reader how it would feel like to possess the power of prescience. As far as a movie that's better than the book, for me it is Annihilation.

The Godfather is my go to example of this. The book is ok, kinda schlocky but the characters make it bearable. It was never designed to be any better than a pulp novel about some gangsters. Movie takes everything about it and makes it better, removes a lot of bullshit as well. It’s an amazing improvement by Coppola and Puzo’s script and the actors.

"Forrest Gump" and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" were drastically altered for the better. Also, "The Godfather" movie spared us the novel's plot point about Sonny's oversized....um....manhood and Connie's equally oversized maid of honor who is also Sonny's mistress.

I think JAWS might deserve a place on your list. Spielberg tossed out all the junk, and kept only the good parts.

Big disagree on Count of Monte Cristo movie being better than the book. The movies (that I've seen anyway) pretty much completely miss the point of the book. They usually give everyone a nice happy ending, which does not happen in the book. I've never seen a movie that even has Haydée in it. I've never seen a movie that captures Edmund's melancholy relationship with Mercédès correctly, they just end up happily ever after for no reason

Without Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility and Colin Firth's Pride and Prejudice I would never have understood the humor and wit of Jane Austen's books.

To anyone who is interested in reading Stardust, make the effort to pick up the graphic novel version illustrated by regular Gaiman collabrator Charles Vess. His art brings SO MUCH of that "missing" charm.

The Mist {EDITED}..in fact Stephen King has stated that he wished he wrote the movie ending instead of his own in the book

"Girl, Interrupted" and "Blade Runner" definitely both improved upon their source material.

I couldn’t agree more about LOTR and Princess Bride. When I was a young teen, I thought I would read these books because I loved the movies so much… it made me think I didn’t like reading. 😅

I thought the battle of Helms Deep was written well in The Two Towers. The imagery of the horns sounding deep in the caves as Théoden, Aragorn and the Rohirrim ride out as the Orcs scatter is so vivid. It's stayed with me since the first time I read it.

I love Chronicles of Narnia but when it comes to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe I always felt that I prefer the movie version a lot more - it really brought out the reality of WW2 which was then soothed by the tangible magic^^

One could make the case that Frank spoiling everything in Dune was a way of giving the reader a glimpse of the prescience Paul deals with throughout the series. We know things are going to happen before they happen and yet we are locked to this terrible fate. This terrible purpose. Would love to hear your takes on the next books in the series. You cant just stop at the first book and "get" Dune.

Thank you! I always tell people that saying the book is better is weird to me, because it's a different medium of telling a story. In most cases, as a casual moviegoer, I prefer the movie to get an idea for whether I would want to dedicate that kind of time to the book. Unless someone with very common interests recommends the book first, but I do not surround myself with many readers, heh. But anyway - You don't have the same constraints with a book that you do as a movie, so naturally, you can tell a complete unabridged story in a book. A lot of times, when a movie is made, characters are cut, subplots are removed, because you just don't have the same amount of screentime as you might have for telling the story in a novel. And yeah, the story could be adapted to a serialized show or miniseries, but that's a much bigger time investment both for the filmmakers and the viewers. Anyway, I love the list. Good choices, though I haven't read most of these yet... Now, I'm not sure if I want to. 😂 But thank you for the heads up, sincerely. I appreciate your insight.

Solid arguments for what you prefer, but I do disagree on Dune and LOTR. For me, the appeal of Dune is the feeling of mythic scope. The clear understanding from the beginning that the characters are being driven forward toward a predetermined destiny by massive forces beyond their control, and then to see one by one those larger forces also being overtaken by events. It just keeps piling up and piling up the sense of scope and scale. In the case of LOTR, I love the casting and the adventure, but I miss the many quiet moments that were removed or shortened and I disagree with changes made to some of the characters, particularly Frodo. In the movies, Frodo is a naive young man frequently misled by Gollum, including being convinced by Gollum that he should not trust Sam. In the books, Frodo is a fairly mature man in his 50's who has a consistently clear-eyed understanding of Gollum and actually has a pretty sophisticated and nuanced strategy for keeping Gollum (relatively) under control. And, Frodo does not lose faith in Sam, which means that Frodo is consistently as good a friend to Sam as Sam is to Frodo.

I think the movie soundtracks add a whole lot to the mood(s) of movies. That's why John Williams deserves almost as much credit as the directors. The rollercoaster of moods you experience from Love Actually is, in a large part because of the songs. When Emma Thompson realizes that her husband is cheating and Joni Michell starts playing will make anybody misty eyed.

The count of monte cristo movie left out my favorite part of the book, the count encouraging de villefort's wife into killing his family. Book way better than movie imo

The Shawshank Redemption

You may have convinced me about Dune and LOTR! I haven’t really thought about it until now but I think I feel the same way. LOTR is tough though. I agree with you however I would have really liked to see the scouring of the Shire on screen but I like way PJ ended it with the hobbits returning and the Shire is the same and THEY are completely different. I love how Sam had to travel halfway across the world and back for the better part of a year just to find the courage to talk to a woman who was already interested in him. Love it. I would also add a Stand By Me and Fight Club to this list.

Forrest Gump the book is horrendous. Not sure if the movie has aged well, but it still has to be waaaaaay better than the book.

The Godfather Forrest Gump

Is there a connection between which medium you got to first? LOTR you saw as a movie before you read it. How about the others? I read The Princess Bride years before the movie came out, and they are both among my favorites. I wonder if the book would have suffered if I'd seen the movie first. Thanks!

I agree with you that the Dune movies are better than the book, but I disagree with the reasoning. I don't mind the book spoiling itself because it allows the grace for us to understand context at the level that is normally only accessible in a reread. When your world is as complex as Dune's is, and you as an author want to make sure people to walk away understanding the themes, that's asking a LOT to then also force them to try to keep up with the plot when the world is so vastly different and you have a bunch of new vocabulary words to learn. That said, I still think the movie is better because in a visual medium you can cut through the noise and trust the audience to just watch what is happening and go with the flow without needing to explain every little detail. When the action is covered visually, you can use literally every word to invest in the storytelling and making those themes clear. Basically, I think the movie is more efficient. But I don't think the book would have succeeded on its own had it not "spoiled itself," it'd just have been even more dense than it already is.

Yep. Though specifically for Dune, I'd like to read a version of the series written in a close 3rd person. God, that would be amazing.

I haven’t read the Count of Monte Cristo. But the movie is one of my all time favorites.

James Bond movies Bunny Lake is Missing

The LOTR movies are so beautiful too.

The two that immediately leapt to mind are The Godfather and The Shining. I’ve never read A Clockwork Orange, but the movie is one of my all time favorites. Also, cat is listening.

I knew Stardust would have to be on this list, and I agree. I think what it's missing is an actual climax. There's no end battle against the witch or anything. They're just like "we're good now" and walk away at the end, while the movie has a fun action battle and happy ending

To Have and Have Not. Howard Hawks, William Faulkner, Jules Furthman (plus Bogart and Bacall and so on) make a masterpiece out of Hemingway's worst novel.

Children of Men. Somebody realised that the end of the book was the start of a much more interesting and engaging story, and chose to make a film of that rather than the novel.

Mine was The Devil Wears Prada. Although I liked the book, I think the characters and storytelling was vastly improved by the movie

Mentioned Dune but left out a previous example by Denis, though maybe it doesn’t quite count since it was a short story? “Arrival” is so much better than “Story of Your Life” imho, and mostly because of a single change. Such a spectacular movie. Highly recommend if you haven’t seen it.

You're right, this is blasphemy! 😅 I guess this depends a lot on if you read the book or watch the movie first. I read books first. To me, LOTR movies are really good, but nowhere near the books. They lack the deepness and mystic of the books, for example, when representing elves and their culture. The movies are long, but still they feel compressed. Same about Dune, I love the movies, but again, they lack the depth of the book. The discovery about the relationship between spice and worms is very important in the books but kind of missing in the movies and the guild of navigators almost irrelevant. When reading the books, we are reading from the perspective of a historian, so I think it's ok if things are told in advance. Also goes very well with Paul knowing the future too, trying to avoid by all means its realisation, something that the movies don't picture clearly. The ecology part is quite absent too. I also prefer Statdust the book to the movie. I like the darker tone of the book, the slow worldbuilding and contrast between the town and the other side of the wall, the slow discovery of it. And of course, revisiting Faerie after reading Sandman, that was a high moment for me. The movie is ok, but I don't like its silliness or the way they portrait the star. If Gaiman said the movie was better, maybe he just wanted people to watch it 🤷

Jaws, Watership Down, Harry Potter (yes, all of them). I would agree with LotR if we were only talking about book/film 1, but film 2 and 3 are too flawed in my opinion. Still good, but absolutely not better than the books. Cheers

I agree with stardust and LotR, the rest I've only seen 1 half of the equation. I'd add Jurassic Park, Vanity Fair, Phantom of the Opera and Alice in Wonderland, tv adaptations I'd also add in Bridgerton and Emma(BBC version)

Omg - you cannot falt LofR movies - every time I cross the Hutt river I think about the wraith chase being destroyed by river horses.

So a lot of folks mentioned Jaws, which is a good start - but both The Shawshank Redemption AND Stand By Me from Stephen King’s different seasons are on this list for me. Either story on the page has some of King’s trademark wit, but these are arguably two of the greatest movies of the 80’s and 90’s. They belong here 😎🤘🏻

Crichton's Jurassic books, the first one in particular. I haven't read a lot of his other work, but Crichton's characters were horrifically one-dimensional and devoid of personality. Points, however, for evil John Hammond. Not sure which I prefer, that or the Attenborough's charming version. Spielberg (or rather, his scriptwriters) brought some individuality to the table, even in the editing mess that is The Lost World. I would pay $200 easy for a blu-ray of the TV cut I saw ages ago that had all the deleted scenes plugged in that fleshed out the new characters and then some.

The biggest problem with the LOTR books is that there's only one person who has any growth - Sam. But in the movie, lots of characters have growth, which is nice.

Two movies that were substantial improvements over the novels were Forest Gump and Jaws. Both tightened the focus of the stories and shed distractions to very good effect. I think that Doctor Zhivago probably also benefited from David Lean’s masterful cinematic treatment, though the vast number of years that have passed since both reading the translated novel and seeing that film may have some effect on my assessment. Your take on the Lord of the Rings is understandable and relatable: Peter Jackson and his associates in the work set the cinematic bar so high that even they could not again make the leap. I still protest the character assassination of Faramir, the constantly increasing whimpification of Frodo, and diminution of the Ents’ decision to go to war.

My movies better than the Book; My list--- Ella Enchanted, Breakfast at Tiffany's and Charlie and the chocolate factory(Willy Wonka)1973 , off the top of my head.

You make an interesting point about Dune. That Frank did spoil a lot of potential storylines, never occurred to me. As for your slightly blasphemous take on The Count of Monte Cristo, the book was epically long with such a rich complex storyline, that none of the many movies do come close to doing the story justice. As for your take on Lord of the Rings…. pure blasphemy. You’re in my thoughts and prayers 🙏 A great post despite the multiple heresies.

I agree with you on all movies _except_ Princess Bride. Funnily enough for the reasons you named. I saw the movie first and it had this run-of-the-mill lackluster feel to it. It was only when I read the novel it is bases on that understood the movie. The adaptation is what Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy whould look like if you took out the jokes.

TV show rather than movie, but I like The Magicians TV series waaaayyyy better than the book.

To me Dune reads as history with a narrative, insteas of a story with a narrative. It's different from history books in fiction - The Silmarillion, Fire & Blood - because we are following the events but there's this narrator detachment you mentioned about it. I haven't read it but, by descriptions, The Grace of Kings seems to be similar to Dune in that aspect, minus the spoiler filled historian's excerpt in each chapter.

Nice! This is video I didn't know (but did know) I needed! Love your analysis. I fully agree--the book is ALWAYS better... except when the movie is better. The Prestige, Wizard of Oz (only because the movie is so magical and beautiful), Somewhere in Time. Also The Devil Wears Prada (although I haven't read the book lol). And yes, it's sacrilege to include LOTR, but the movies add so much character depth, those of us who adore characters over plot can kind of, sort of, feel like... sacrilege. But in all cases, credit must be given to the author for birthing and executing the original idea that inspired someone else to adapt it. 👍 Great video!

I was probably too young when I read Dune, which made it more difficult to appreciate as anything more than just a story. The movie(s) gave me chills, when I saw how well they had "realized" the concepts from the books

The French Lieutenant's Woman. Not only is the movie better able to show what the book is aiming to do but I also appreciate the book more after seeing the movie.

Totally agree about dune and the count of monte Cristo

45 seconds in and already a wildly unforgivable take. Respect.

The LotRs movies were well made, but the books are infinitely better. The movies left out sooooo many critical elements. The most critical missing element was Tom and Goldberry, who are the whole point of the mythology. Had you not seen the movies first you'd most likely have a completely opposite opinion.

I thought you did great with your list of choices as well as your reasoning. On two of your choices, I agree 100%. A disclaimer at the beginning of your video that this is YOUR opinion should be sufficient to establish that you respect differing views and ask the same of others. That said...thank you so much for sharing your thoughts.

Perfect! Was looking for a non controversial video!

For me it Jaws. In the book obviously there was a lot more going on than the movie. But in the book the shark was really not the star of the book. The book really focused on who the shark was killing the island economy. There was a lot of small town politics, organized crime was involved, along with the past relationship with Hooper and Brody's wife. I guess since i have seen a million time before i read the book i went in kind of bias to the movie. But Jurassic Park is my favorite movie and i saw the movie many times before i read the book, i still think the books are way better than the movies.

Preach about Dune honestly. I don't actually agree with you on your reasoning but I do about the end result. Dune part 2 goes so much harder than the book does at every point, it keeps the same mood and feeling while injecting some much needed emotion in to it all. I don't know if the Messiah film will be able to surpass the Messiah book though, cuz that one is pretty seriously good.

A few to consider, Mary Poppins, Sword in the Stone, Hunchback of Notre Dame (even the author rewrote it for a play), and ... The Rocketeer (though that's more a comic). Though, of these I did enjoy Hunchback somewhat more so than the others, but, yeah, I just couldn't get into them. I wholeheartedly agree about Princess Bride. Reading the book almost seemed like a letdown, even though it's not bad. I think Monte Cristo is debatable, simply because I have not read the book in full yet, but I have seen both the adaptation you showed and the Richard Chamberlain adaptation. The Richard Chamberlain adaptation is closer to the book from what I gather and was pretty good. As for Lord of the Rings, I think that's just a preference. Both the books and the movies are top-tier. I too saw the movies before reading the books, but I quite like the books as much as I do the movies, and kind of can see where book fans come from regarding certain changes to beloved characters. That said, I also understand Peter Jackson's reasons for the changes he made and why it fits better for movies. Maybe do a list of movies that didn't do the books justice? If you already have, disregard this, but if not ... well, there might be too many for that. 😅

Predestination by Heinlen is a good pick. Loved the short story, but the movie blew my socks off. It's sooooo underrated imo

I had a weakness for Dickens when I was younger, and I'm still fond of him, but I could always understand when my friends declared they hated him. Yes, his style takes getting used to, and yes, he uses FAR more words than he needs to. Yet the cinematic adaptations of his work are quite frequently a joy to watch, and would deserve a spot on this list: Oliver Twist (David Lean, 1948) and Great Expectations (David Lean, 1947) spring to mind immediately. My personal favorite, however, is MGM's A Tale of Two Cities (1936), starring Ronald Colman, Elizabeth Allan, Edna May Oliver, Reginald Owen, and Walter Catlett. The difference between book and film, as you point out with Stardust and The Princess Bride, is the amount of HEART that goes into the story. When I read the book, I can think, "Well, this is interesting," all the while feeling impatient with yet another of Dickens' colorless young heroines. The movie, on the other hand, tears my heart to pieces every time I watch it, with Colman's sublime portrayal of Sidney Carton at the center of it all.

Fun Fact: Both Daredevil and Jigsaw(from Punisher). Are in Stardust ( Charlie Cox and Ben Barns)

Half the point of Dune, the book, is the conflict that prescience creates with itself simply by existing. Dune "spoils itself" intentionally. I get that some people aren't going to like that, but it's a core theme to the whole Dune mythos. The other half of Dune's theme, the more important half per Herbert, is that heroes create disasters. Paul isn't "the good guy", he's the human equivalent of all-out nuclear war, per Herbert. He destroys multiple planetary civilizations, slaughters billions of people, wrecks plans that have been in the works for thousands of years, smashes ecosystems, and even interstellar exploration and travel can't escape his calamities. So Paul knows that he's wrecking things, and so does the reader. That's kind of the point.

I've tried to read the Count of Monte Cristo a bunch of times but I can't for the life of me push past page 200. Booktube has convinced me it's going to change my life...but I think I'm just going to have to let this one go. The film is great though 😅

I love the book but I didn´t like the Count of Monte Cristo movie as whole; however, Jim Caviezel as the Count was excellent. Other Movies That Were Better Than the Book, for me : The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Misery, Big Fish , Brooklyn , Matilda

Marathon Man, Jaws, Trainspotting, Night Of The Hunter, A Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Searchers

2 that are my go-to: Bedknobs & Broomsticks, and Big Fish. Neither of the books comes close to the magic in their respective movies and not just because it's visual vs. text.

2:34 the Dune books spoiling themselves creates a direct connection between the reader and the protagonist - as in we as readers become prescient. We know what is to happen, but not exactly how, or why. This is the only explanation I can think of for Herbert's insistence on doing this for all the Dune books.

Jaws better movie than book

I see your point with LotR/Dune/MonteCristo, I won't hate you for that 😄 old books are sometimes so slow paced that modern movies compensate for the (inevitable) lack of depth with more immersive and memorable action. Stardust (the book) was such a letdown for me because I saw the movie first and loved it, recently I discovered that Neil Gaiman is aware of this and it made me laugh. As an author myself... it must be a strange feeling for to see a movie that better your work, sad that they had better ideas than you but kinda uplifting that someone elevated your work.😄

The Dune books series could have a running gag to it. The likely reason no one has done a live action or even animated version of all the books is that while the first Dune book started off weird, the books get weirder and weirder as they continue.

I can't really argue with anything on your list. I'd add "The Shining."

I’m currently listening to Dune on Audible. While I’m not sure your reasoning is why I feel the way I do (though you do make a great point), so far I agree that the movies are better than the book. Yes, there are things left out of the movie that are in the book and things that are different in the book than in the movie. But, I don’t think enough is left out or changed too drastically to make that big of a difference. Again, I’m still not all the way finished with the book, but so far, I think the most recent movie adaptation is better than the book.

The goal of Dune was that the character couldn't escape his fate. Thus you the reader couldn't escape the narrative fate. It was reinforcing the very experience the character himself was trapped in. I never get this complaint of Dune.

I agree on all these takes. All of those movies are a joy to watch.

My favorite movie is The Prestige. I had no idea it was based on a book, so when I found the book I bought it immediately. Unfortunately, the book is not good. The same general concept is the starting point for both, but the movie creates such a fantastic extrapolation of the concept, while the book does very little with it.

Honestly agree on these!!

Stardust was a comic first (amazing art by Charles Vess), adapted into a text only novel and later the film. I'm thinking that may explain it.

Practical Magic. The movie and book are very different- and the movie is better. The cast is amazing- Sandra Bullock, Nicole Kidman, Stockard Channing and Dianne Wiest are all fabulous together.

100% agree with you on the count of monte cristo

IMO Hellraiser is much better than the novella it's based on, The Hellbound Heart. I think using the female POV character as a morally pure foil, like they do in Hellraiser, creates a more timeless, more resonant, more complete artistic vision -- unlike in the book when it's implied that everything is corrupt to its bottom. And I'd have to read Howl's Moving Castle again, but man Miyazaki's animation really uplifts the movie for me. It's also a taste thing -- Miyazaki makes the story into more of a serious fairy-tale rather than a tongue-in-cheek one. HARD disagree on Lord of the Rings, though. While I don't think he should've been put in the movie, because I think he might be unfilmable, but Tom Bombadil is my FAVORITE character in Lord of the Rings. I also feel like the prose itself drenches it in this atmosphere that's very similar to the old European epics and really elevates the material -- like the Riders of Rohan scene in the movie is really good, of course, but in the book? It's transcendent. Also WHY did they change Legolas?? He's so fae in the book -- this lightfooted, lighthearted wood elf. They made him into an action hero. ): Not that the movies are bad -- they are much better than anyone could've hoped for considering the incongruity of LOTR with many modern film conventions. And there are certain scenes that REALLY capture the atmosphere well, I feel, and characters that really come through -- like Gandalf and Samwise.

I think I agree with them all

I prefer the Dune films over the book, though I did enjoy the book. LotR films and books are BOTH god tier. Now, have you thought of a book adaptation where BOTH are brilliant? Here's mine: Faber's and Glazer's Under the Skin. Both masterpieces; yet quite different also.

My choices would be: Who framed Roger Rabbit. Who censored Roger Rabbit is soon different. The author actually wrote sequel books based on the movie. Howl's Moving castle is the same. Same with the wizard of Oz. Keep the general idea & do something unique.

For me it's "The Firm" by John Grisham. The book has this whole section where the good guys and the bad guys are running around in Florida basically accomplishing nothing. The film is much tighter and more focused.

I have a weird relationshiop with Howls Moving Castle. I love the movie for how it represented the love story more than the books. But I also loved the extra context all of the events in the first book. BTW if you love the movie, I definitely think the source material which is the Land of Ingary chronicles are worth reading. The third book is my absolute fav.

Examples for me: 2001: A Space Odyssey - the book is great, however the film is nonpareil The Shining - ironically, Kubrick was far better at horror than King, and twisted the story in all the right ways The Godfather - cuts out a lot of the crap from the books while massively elevating the good stuff Every adaptation of a PKD story - his characters are cartoons and his books were written like long screenplays anyway

The only one I’d agree on is The Princess Bride. Dune??? Which film? LOL Same goes for The Count of Monte Cristo - which is classic literature btw. LOTR - you’ve not actually read Tolkien, have you? Stardust was equally good as a film & a book.

I agreed with every single thing you said in this video. Subscribed!

I haven't seen or read Dune, but I agree with the rest of your list 100%. Confession: I haven't rewatch The Princess Bride since reading the book (and I reread it to be sure I had actually read the real thing...), I'm afraid I won't like it anymore... Speaking of Neil Gaiman, I would say Coraline is also better as a movie than as a book. Nightmare fuel, but so good.

Others are London Boulevard (a completely different story), No Country for Old Men, Kubrick’s version of The Shining.

Liene, you had me until The Count of Monte Cristo. That's my favorite book of all time and I ended up super disappointed in the 2002 movie 😂. I still recognize it as good on its own terms, though, it just fundamentally differs thematically from the novel. Respect for these brave takes, though!

Absolutely agree with you on Princess bride which is actually my all time facorite movie .. >.> You know how people that here like an original song and mostly just can't get into the remake .. but people who hear the remake are genuinely really into it? Mebbe that's what it is for you with LoTR also? Possibly since you saw the movies before reading the books, cuz I'll say for me the books are light years beyond the movies, even though the movies are also light years into the awesome spectrum like you said .. God tier. But thy're both so far into the awesome spectrum do their differences really even matter? So ... not so heinous ... I've always shied away from watching Stardust cuz I felt like it was just a Princess Bride rip off (movie wise) ... IS it worth a watch?

Out here agreeing with our 1000000% across the board for all the books vs movies!!

I work backwards, I see the film and then read the book. The book can help flesh out the story and characters but the movie (if it's good) hooks me into the idea. When I've read a book before it became a film, I notice changes but when it's a fairly straight adaptation-it's almost boring. Dune changes one character who largely just stands by the hero and goes with all his decisions and makes them conflicted and breaking away from the final situation. Tolkein skipped over many battles or confrontations, no way Hollywood would do that.

Jaws. Peter Benchley wrote a book that caught people's imagination, but Spielberg made a movie that is one of the best horror suspence adventure thrillers of all time. Screenwriter Carl Gotlieb ironned our many of the clunky plot holes and injected some much needed humour. And especially, they got rid of the Housewives of Amity love triangle. Thank God!

I read the book the count of monte cristo because I knew the movie was coming and it was a book I heard about. I don’t remember anything from the book really except liking it. And yeah I liked the movie better, but still only remember that and nothing else. Think the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy was good? That book I avoided until I was about 22. I had a friend who liked it so much I didn’t want to read it. Had nobody telling me to read it when I saw it in the library so checked it out. Instantly obsessed and read all of Douglas Adam’s work and learned a lot about him. I don’t remember what movie I saw in a theater but saw a theater trailer with the face you know from the book simply saying “don’t panic” and I was like… holy hell, I just read the entire series! I was let down a little by the movie but still liked it.

You had me until The Count of Monte Cristo. There's no need for Fernand and Edmund to be childhood friends. In fact, it would take the narrative too far in the book. Before the betrayal, Dantes is young, ebullient, and idealistic. After, he is cold, deliberate, and cynical. If the betrayal had been by his best friend, I feel like he would not have the calculated, dispassionate nature of the Count. It would be more of a rage filled, emotional response. That said, hard agree with the Lord of the Rings. For all of the beautiful prose of the book, it can also be a slog to get through at certain points where the movie never stops.

I agree with these