Movie actually better than book for once (Maze runner)

Submitted by throwaway-clonewars t3_y9m51e in books

So I've got 70ish pages left in the first Maze Runner book and I'm actually kinda disappointed that the movie feels like it executed the core plot points and ideas better than the book (thus far- 300 pages in- though I have little hope)

Before my preemptive review/thoughts anyone have this happen to them with a book made movie? I know it's usually the other way around hense my disappointment.

Minimal spoilers below I guess:

So it's very wordy for 1. Theres a lot said without much substance that drives the plot, especially as there's SO many chapters that are barely 5 pages at times. That give to a not so great formating issue. A number of chapters can be combined to drop the 62 chapters down to like 40 and still feel natural. Some scenes could be axed or cut down no issue.

  1. Everyone keeps withholding information from Thomas, often at times that don't make sense creating a faux plot conflict or drama to push the story along. The good beginning half of the book solely relies on that. (Movie makes things happen quicker so the withholding isn't as drawn out as in the book)

  2. Personally, the Thomas/Teresa telepathy plot line feels completely forced, and unnatural for the seen tech in the world when it's introduced. I'm thankful they nixed that from the movies because it doesn't really work at all other than to give an "ooh, they can talk to each other", "they're destined for each other" in your face type thing.

  3. The general language (shuck, klank) instead of cursing really ONLY fits for the younger readers. Reading it years later than I'd planned, I almost cringe when I hear them use it in literally every conversation (which gives a "ooh I curse alot so im cool" vibe) though it does fit for the characters age.

  4. It's a bit hard to believe that it took 2 years to solve the code for the Maze given how obviously its written (for younger readers I know, but even at that age pre movie I'd have been guessing that answer right when it was mentioned about them making maps). I get the one track mind type thing, but with as many newbies as they get you'd THINK they'd solve it faster as overlaying changes is the most obvious thing- if its nothing on its own then of course its all together

29

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Downtown-Egg-2031 t1_it6lufn wrote

I read it longgg back but I do remember experiencing something similar. The book was impossible to get through. The movie definitely fares better imo

8

voidedzodiac t1_it6m5e7 wrote

That series is one of the worst I've ever read

36

throwaway-clonewars OP t1_it6msg9 wrote

Replying to voidedzodiac (#163,129)

I don't have too high of hopes for it considering this first one, but its been sitting on my shelf for years so I figured I should at least read it once.

Got quite a few series like that I'm working through like that- especially the movie ones I never actually got around to. I'm going to be so sad if Eragon ends up the same. I hope not, since I've heard good things, but same was for this book so who knows.

2

puddingwinchester t1_it6nmlv wrote

I have to disagree. Maybe you should read the other books too.

For example the telepathy thing you thought was good to eliminate is quite important in the other books. Plotlines doesnt work without it so the other movies (especially the second) are totally different.

I agree that the first movie isnt bad, just different from the book. The second movie is really bad in my opinion. The third is better and more like the book but they mixed up many things and put them wrong together.

The books are quite stable in quality to me

4

drewfarndale t1_it6nq99 wrote

Went in cold to both Maze Runner and Percy Jackson. Never having read the source material I thougt they were both decent films. I know PJ fans will murder me for this opinion.

The Godfather is a far better as a film too. The book is OK but Coppola brings it alive in so many ways.

7

ThisISDesert t1_it6s3si wrote

unpopular opinion (maybe?) but LotR films are better than the books

8

samwaswiseandgamgee t1_it6txvo wrote

I thought Howl's Moving Castle (film) was better than the book. Granted, it's not my style of book and I bought it to read aloud to my (6yo) son, so it's probanly not fair even for me to compare, but the movie is such a beautiful depiction of this magical world and the relationship with it's characters. They're really two completely different experiences.

13

Griffen_07 t1_it6ua2m wrote

Replying to samwaswiseandgamgee (#163,577)

Studio Gibli tends to make movies based on vibes more than the actual source material. They did a similar thing with Borrowers vs the Secret World of Arrietty. It' a choice but I love Diana Wynne Jones books. I like the way she twists fairy tales but 6 is too young. You need someone who already knows the fairytales.

15

The_Greyarch t1_it6ua40 wrote

I'm going to blaspheme in the eyes of many, but... that's The Dark Tower for me.

I've read several Stephen King novels over the years. Some better than others, for sure, but none of them really managed to sway me over. And to me it just feels like The Dark Tower is Stephen King at his most... Stephen Kingliest. Meanwhile, the movie is a very well made Hollywood Blockbuster. A popcorn movie like any other. So, even though it isn't anything special, I still quite enjoyed it.

−1

samwaswiseandgamgee t1_it6ujjx wrote

Replying to Griffen_07 (#163,594)

Absolutely agree about the vibe thing. Sometimes I need to warch something and I know a Ghibli film is the only thing that will do it for me.

When Marnie Was There is such a wonderful movie, and I own the book now, but am hesitant to read it for the same reason as above. Not because I'll be disappointed, I just know it won't feel the same.

1

Griffen_07 t1_it6uu3d wrote

Replying to samwaswiseandgamgee (#163,611)

That's fair. I'm getting to the point where I don't want to watch movies or TV shows about my favorite books because they are never good. You have to change too much to make a bunch of random people understand the story in an hour that took you weeks to read.

2

samwaswiseandgamgee t1_it6vbhj wrote

Replying to Griffen_07 (#163,630)

Absolutely agree. Typically now if I read a book that I love that has an adaptation, I won't watch it because it's just not the same experience and my biased brain won't appreciate the differences. Honestly, Howl's Moving Castle is the only exception that I can think of, but I had watched it and fallen in love with it several times before I read it. Maybe that's just my biased brain working inversely for that one.

2

Houli1975 t1_it6vysg wrote

Ready Player One.

The prose just stunk. And the author would straight up stop the narrative to give page after page of fan wank description (really dude, you’re going to spend five pages telling me where the DeLorean from Back to the Future comes from?).

Glad Spielberg just used that stuff as window dressing. And just made a fun propulsive Goonies-in-VR coming of age style adventure film.

4

Nimindir t1_it71gje wrote

As a kid, I LOVED the movie Quest for Camelot. Still do, actually. Definitely in my top five fave cartoons.

It was 'based on' a book called The King's Damosel by Vera Chapman.

It is AWFUL. I am also SUPER fucking glad I didn't get a hand on that book until I was in my teens.

Okay granted, I haven't read it since high school so maybe it's not quite as bad as I remember, buuut... holy fuck they made a children's movie based off a book where the main character (CW SA) >! is raped by her mentor while she's still basically a child !< and then at the very end of the book, her true love decides he'd rather die in a month than spend the next few decades growing old with her.

Fucking awful.

2

Doobiemoto t1_it79pks wrote

Replying to ThisISDesert (#163,464)

I wouldn’t say better but they are each unique.

It really bothers me when lotr fans shit on the movies. They are literal cinematic masterpieces.

Both the books and the movies are amazing in what they are trying to achieve.

And I can see someone saying they like either better than the other.

9

throwaway-clonewars OP t1_it7a7qa wrote

Replying to drewfarndale (#163,198)

I often find for me it's similar- especially those 2 series. I see the movie then the book, because usually the book is different and when I read the book first I'm usually disappointed with the movie because I compare scene for scene as I watch.

5

Woolybunn1974 t1_it7akon wrote

Blackhawk Down. The book was compiled out of radio transcripts and interviews. This made it accurate and visceral but I had a very difficult time placing events geographically. The visuals of the movie solved this.

1

throwaway-clonewars OP t1_it7anld wrote

Replying to ThisISDesert (#163,464)

Oh really? Definitely unpopular, or at least quiet since that's the first time I'd heard anyone say that.

I'm definitely a huge movie fan, trying to read the books. My mistake was attempting to start with Silimarian and not like the hobbit, cause that one I got partway and then put it down for something a bit easier cause I was like 12 at the time I tried to read and had 0 clue what was being said

2

flyover_liberal t1_it7apy8 wrote

Replying to ThisISDesert (#163,464)

> LotR films are better than the books

They're MUCH shallower. I love them both, but my brother can't stand the movies because they take Gimli, one of the greatest warriors in literature, and reduce him to comedy relief.

9

flyover_liberal t1_it7b153 wrote

Replying to Houli1975 (#163,709)

RPO was enjoyable for those of us who grew up in that era.

The movie was fun too, but it made the puzzles stupidly easy. The point of the quest in the book was that people studied every nuance of Haliday's life, and used that knowledge to solve the puzzles. In the movie, it felt like it was mostly luck.

4

flyover_liberal t1_it7bhhq wrote

I can think of a few times when the books and the movies are equally good ... like Harry Potter and Contact ... but different in important ways.

1

ChaosAE t1_it7dgmx wrote

There are a few cases where I’d say the film was far better but also had little to do with the book.

Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now: Whole setting change and the movie production was an absolute shit show, but I’d say the final product outdoes the book by a lot.

Who Framed Rodger Rabbit: Literally has nothing to do with the book, turned a weird book into a revolutionary film for animation.

As for one where they are more comparable,

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: I love them both, and I know Thompson didn’t care for the movie. But at the end of the day I think the film successful captured the district voice and tone the book has, and handled the ending a bit better than some of the more weird disjointed stuff at the end of the book.

3

The_Greyarch t1_it7dkbl wrote

Replying to throwaway-clonewars (#165,014)

Really do hope you'll end up enjoying them. I might not like his writing personally, but I can understand why people are a fan of him. And I have to admit he's got some wonderful idea's when it comes to stories.

1

AzLibDem t1_it7gcg1 wrote

I would say the same about JAWS and Jurassic Park.

8

Nimindir t1_it7i2t4 wrote

Replying to throwaway-clonewars (#165,059)

Yeah, same here. I didn't notice for years, but during 'United We Stand' while the beginning credits are rolling it comes up on screen 'Based on the novel by Vera Chapman', so when I finally did notice I spent the next few months trying to track down that tiny out-of-print book, and... I kind of despise it.

I mean, I was expecting stuff like the wisecracking two-headed dragons were probably not going to make an appearance, but I was totally NOT expecting CSA and major character death.

Plus, they totally screwed around with names and who is what character when it came to the adaptation, which I just find odd more than anything.

Kayley is actually Lynette, the younger less attractive sister of Leonie. The book starts with them having a double wedding with brothers Gareth and Gaheris. No, Lynette does not marry Gareth, who she actually has feelings for. She gets stuck with the younger less attractive Gaheris, who tells her on their wedding night 'yeah so I'm actually super not interested, I'mma peace out'.

So then she becomes a kind of ambassador for Arthur, eventually runs inter Ruber (her assaulter) again, gets thrown in a cell, manages to escape into some underground cave system, where she meets a blind man named Lucius. He's not blind from an accident, he's blind from spending too much time underground in caves. And it's also killing him, for some reason. They fall in love, she finds out he's dying, so she goes on a quest to find the Holy Grail, succeeds, brings it back to him, aaannd...

He can choose between being cured and growing old together, or having his eyesight restored and dying in a month.

He chooses death.

The end.

I cannot think of a single other book that pissed me off as much as that one did.

2

Koboldcremationist t1_it7i9lo wrote

Starship troopers for me. Movie is 1000x better than the book.

8

ZoulsGaming t1_it7in5l wrote

I HATE that book series, it's been 10 years and I still to this day have a seething hatred for it everytime I'm reminded it exists. There are like 7 books and it's the most contrived painful idiotic nonsense put to paper.

Minor spoiler. To make a tldr basically every book after everything that happens and has happened is all planned at all times, with insane nonsense like seeing hanging people in a corridor that vanishes after the light blinks. Never explained. TELEPORTATION TECHNOLOGY. Never explained. Reasoning and bullshit galore.

The movies on the other hand are just normal no brain zombie action movies and god they are better for it.

7

fuulmonn t1_it7jufu wrote

also an unpopular opinion but I really liked the movie "Dune" (2021) but I hated the book... maybe it's too old ? But I will stick to the movies

3

Lizk4 t1_it7lmh0 wrote

I enjoyed both book and film. I watched the film first, and then read the book and felt the book really filled in some of the background of the film. But then I like slow, informative books with compelling characters....

2

RoamBear t1_it7mrpe wrote

lol yes for the same reason Ready Player One is a better movie than book

1

tsunami141 t1_it7ourk wrote

Replying to voidedzodiac (#163,129)

Nothing in those books made any freaking sense, including introducing a second feminine love interest with 0 personality differences to the first besides being a little more flirty, while simultaneously practically erasing the first.

Also the reasoning for killing a bunch of kids was to cure a disease… by making them experience a bunch of weird situations?

Absolute nonsense honestly

7

NickolaBrinx t1_it7r98g wrote

I felt the same way. I was reading it when the movie first came out (so it's been a while) and wanted to finish the book before seeing the film but when I finished the book I was so done with the story I almost didn't go only to find that the movie, while not great, was entertaining.

The actors and more concise storytelling greatly improved the story. All while reading the book I just felt like it was just going through the motions to hit certain story beats.

1

COINTELPROfessionals t1_it7rd9t wrote

  • No Country for Old Men (small changes to the movie that actually elevated it by a lot imo).
  • Holes (about the same as the book but they added the rap song which rocks).
  • Many Stanley Kubrick movies including The Shining, Paths of Glory, and Eyes Wide Shut (I haven't read the other books his movies are based on but I assume his movies are better).
1

EternityLeave t1_it7t9uz wrote

Telepathy makes more sense further in the series. But yes the books aren't really better than the movies, except the third book. By the third movie, things stop making sense because of everything they left out. But by the third book, everything that didn't make sense in the first two is explained or becomes relevant. Also third book had some genuine thrills.

2

ZoulsGaming t1_it7uc9o wrote

Replying to NickolaBrinx (#166,520)

Got to book 2 or 3. And basically rage quit because the entire point of book 2 was any character decision and character dynamic, all fake, saved 2 people that was dying, planted, got betrayed by love interest, planted, but was planted that she said it was planted, and it was planted that she said it was planted tbst said it was planted. Entire skyscrapers falls down from a sandstorm? Yep that's planned somehow. Everyone is dying and there is no cure except a few kids who seems to be immune. But they have TELEPORTATION TECHNOLOGY.

God damn. I actually quite liked the first book, but SPOILER apparently in book 7 it's revealed that the entire book one memory loss was a lie and the 5 times she and they almost died? Yep it was planned.

It felt so vile to read it, because I just knew that nothing mattered.

3

Jicama_Stunning t1_it7vhtb wrote

The Shawshank Redemption is way better than the Steven King short story that it’s based on.

3

titos334 t1_it81jcw wrote

I thought Fight Club the movie is better than the book

0

IfOnlyIEverDo t1_it81k6n wrote

I thought Stardust was a better film than book

1

Galindan t1_it85hrq wrote

Around the world in 80 days. The book is already fantastic but the movie from 1956 with Cantiflas and Niven is personally my favorite movie ever. It also doesn't cut anything from the book and actually adds several scenes. All in keeping with the general philosophy of the book. Fantastic stuff and one of the few movies that's over three hours that I wish was longer

3

Glittering_knave t1_it86lf3 wrote

Replying to tsunami141 (#166,226)

I read this with my kids when my kids were little. The first one was intriguing enough. The way to cure a virus was to ... I can't even explain it ... make them live out a weird a scenario that did something to their brains and then there was a cure, but all the kids had to die??? I just couldn't finish. It just didn't make sense.

3

FeeFooFuuFun t1_it8bvkw wrote

Not sure if better is the the word I'd use, but LoTR definitely delivered

1

amideadyet1357 t1_it8giz4 wrote

Replying to Koboldcremationist (#165,614)

Honestly, the movie didn’t get enough credit when it was released. I love the energy of taking militaristic source material and turning it into a satire. I’m glad the movie is getting re-examined in recent years.

4

Stopdropandletitgo t1_it8l2nt wrote

Omg I totally agree! The first book was a bore and the movie brought it to life. Dylan O’ Brien’s performance 😭❤️

1

ZoulsGaming t1_it8nhej wrote

Replying to throwaway-clonewars (#168,979)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Maze_Runner_(book_series) apparently there are 5 main books and i guess 2 prequels? im going off a youtube comment.

it became relevant cause a friend was watching the movies and said he saw nothing wrong, and when we talked about it the plots were just ENTIRELY different.

minor spoiler for book 2 and movie 2. >!in book 2 they come up, in this empty fascility is locked, starve for 2 weeks then see corpses hanging on the sealing that disappears with blinking light and they all get brnaded with titles like "the sinner" and "the betrayer" and stupid shit like that, then a guy called the ratman tells them they are sunscorched and has to travel across the desert in 2 weeks to get "the cure" which is a lie. and basically kicks them into a teleporter!<

>!Start of movie 2 is coming up to a facility with food and people and safety, but deciding to leave because they dont feel safe or wants to explore or something. makes WAY more sense !<

1

summie987 t1_it8oeup wrote

Apart from the last movie, I think the first 2 movies were done really well.

1

throwaway-clonewars OP t1_it8oh0e wrote

Replying to ZoulsGaming (#169,347)

I've seen the movies, so I have a general idea of what I'm getting into of they stick relatively close to the books.

I did know about the Maze runner files and the crank palace, but crank is a short side story and generally "files" type books I take as supplementary information and not part of the larger series. So in my mind it's 3 main. 2 prequels, and 2 extra books about the wider world. (Ie 5 main books and two kinda "nothing" books in terms of the connected storyline)

Didn't know a sequel series was gonna be released though according to that.

1

throwaway-clonewars OP t1_it8piky wrote

Replying to ZoulsGaming (#169,482)

I mean, I don't need the whole thing to be the same, but the idea "kids running through a desert with infected people" is close enough for me in terms of similarity, considering some things just go off the rails from the source material (like the Vampire Diaries show)

1

ISwearImADuck t1_it8szgg wrote

The Hunger Games trilogy, honestly. Given that these were the first books Collins wrote after coming years of TV writing, the books just feel like very in-depth film scripts to me, only with less likeable characters and extra violence that feels like filler than anything. Plus, the concept of a battle-royale-esque game show is much more enjoyable when it can be seen (as most game shows are) rather than told. I also like the perspective the movie gives to what President Snow is like. I prefer when he is given his own scenes where the dichotomy of his calm demeanor and dictator-like acts of genocide is more fully fleshed out. Hearing about his ideology behind the games and the world itself is also very important to me. A villain feels more believable when you hear their side, and we hardly hear his in the books.

2

ZoulsGaming t1_it8uvd0 wrote

Replying to throwaway-clonewars (#169,541)

i mean up to you, but for some easy specific examples the whatever organisation matters alot less and all the infected are just zombies you need to kill in the movies.

in the books its more like an insanity virus that makes you partially insane and violent in bouts until you become a zombie like existence but is significantly more about interacting with humans that has crazy elements rather than pew pew guns go shooting.

1

lucia-pacciola t1_it8ve18 wrote

Wanted the movie is way better than Wanted the book. Mostly by having as little to do with the book as possible.

1

TheDotCaptin t1_it8y7j2 wrote

I read the books before the movie. I felt that the movie aged up the characters too much for how the book was. If the books are read with the thought that the characters are as old as they look in the movie than some of the behavior and how they do stuff won't fit.

1

jelly10001 t1_it90qgc wrote

I'm going back quite a few years, but I've heard countless times how The Wizard of Oz the film is much better than the book by L Frank Baum.

1

_Pohaku_ t1_it91po6 wrote

Your point 2 is my single biggest put off for any thriller or mystery story ever. It’s why the series Lost went from being brilliant to being godawful. I haven’t actually read the MR books but I won’t, because all I can remember from the first movie was a load of kids knowing something but refusing to share it, and getting irrationally angry about it.

1

AlphaStargazer t1_it94qxp wrote

For me it was LoTR lol. The movies were amazing! I tried to start the Fellowship of the Ring (twice) but it was so slow and wordy that I gave up before I even got to Chapter 5...

1

CastleRockMayor t1_it95xsl wrote

Replying to AzLibDem (#165,423)

I was blown away by how bad JAWS is. The writing, the actual story line, the characters; everything about that book is disgustingly bad. I honestly do not know who wrote the screenplay to the movie, but they deserve all the praise in the world.

I would wholeheartedly disagree with Jurassic Park. As phenomenal as Spielberg made JAWS, he made Jurassic Park such a soft movie. The book is great and would do fantastically as a series on HBO or something. But hey, agree to disagree.

3

Virtual_Passenger619 t1_it96rao wrote

There have been a few times that I liked the movie better - Under the Tuscan Sun. Divine Secrets of the YaYa Sisterhood. Both for me the plot flowed better in the movie. Usually I like the book better

1

Redditer51 t1_it9nm2o wrote

Replying to samwaswiseandgamgee (#163,577)

The movie is more of a sincere fantasy drama/adventure about self-acceptance and the folly of war.

The book is more of a tongue-in-cheek comedy from what I remember.

The film takes itself seriously whereas the book doesn't. And the characters in the book ironically seem more cartoonish than the actual cartoon. Not that the book is bad at all.

2

samwaswiseandgamgee t1_it9pm9s wrote

Replying to Redditer51 (#172,217)

Oh yeah, my son liked it a lot and so did my daughter (12 when she read it). I don't read a lot of high fantasy or YA so I'm definitely not it's demographic, but I appreciate it for what it is. And the movie hit me harder than I thought it was going to (only the 2nd Studio Ghibli film I had seen at the time), so it's no wonder I prefer the movie. I'm glad they both exist.

1

Overlord1317 t1_it9vq4k wrote

I don't know what happened with the sequels, but the Maze Runner was one of the most surprisingly good film watches of my life.

1

MllePerso t1_itadk2n wrote

I really hate the whole curse euphemism thing. I hope that if they ever do a movie version of The Inheritance Games, they get rid of that part.

1

ComicsNBigBooks t1_itadkba wrote

Replying to Jicama_Stunning (#166,844)

As someone who is very nostalgic for the movie Holes (my 4th grade class read the book, and then saw the movie together as a class when it came out), I have to agree with this. I still really like the movie, but it is very early 00s in style (even down to having Even Stevens-era Shia LaBeouf as its star).

1

ComicsNBigBooks t1_itafwcz wrote

Replying to ThisISDesert (#163,464)

I used to think this, but as much as I love the LOTR films, I wouldn't call them better. I think they're masterful films which make the most of telling the story in a cinematic medium (albeit with many changes). My biggest problem with them is something that another person mentioned, that they fall into the trap of reducing certain characters (like Gimli) to comic relief. I also thought Faramir's movie characterization suffered in comparison to the book, and I remember the Shelob sequence being far scarier in the book than in the film. The movies are still excellent, with terrific casting, production value, and a clear love for the story. And Howard Shore's music.

The book, meanwhile, makes the most of being essentially an epic myth. It's been several years since I've read it, but thinking back on it, I think the book gives a sense of just how much time passes over the course of the story, making Middle Earth feel that much more like a real world in which these people inhabit, real people whose lives were disrupted by the One Ring.

1

alejandro_tuama t1_itasl26 wrote

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? —> Blade Runner. I enjoyed the book but I think the film completed it.

2

Redditer51 t1_iteer8n wrote

Replying to samwaswiseandgamgee (#172,354)

Yeah, I remember being surprised at just how different they were from each other when I was a teen.

If I had to compare it, it's kinda like the difference between Forrest Gump the movie and Forrest Gump the book. The former is a heartfelt and emotional drama, the latter is a bizarre screwball comedy.

1

ass-shaker- t1_itkunzk wrote

I have always strongly felt that the movie adaptation of “The Notebook” is far better than the book itself

1

throwaway-clonewars OP t1_itl6fm7 wrote

Replying to ass-shaker- (#200,092)

Oh really?

Idk about that one. I read the book but dint remember watching the movie. I think she liked it, but my mom is a sparks fan. We were just talking about the adaptations and she mentioned (shes said it before) how she was angry about the Longest Ride adaptation.

1