 Okay, so as a reader, I know that the official line is always the book was better, but sometimes the movie is better. So I just thought, uh, maybe talk about a few of those, um, that in my opinion, I think the movie is better. And that doesn't necessarily mean that I don't like the book, just like you can like an adaptation even when you think that the book is better. So in some of these cases, I did not like the book and in others, I liked the book, but I still think the movie is better. First and foremost is the adaptation that inspired this entire video, and that is Dune. Yeah, I said it. I've read Dune a couple of times, more than twice, but not three times, because I'm in the midst of a third read. And there's a lot to like about Dune the book. It's, it's good. There's a reason it's a classic, but so many of the things that annoy me about the way that Dune is written, in my opinion, are fixed in the movie. So one of the biggest reasons that I, one of the biggest things that annoy me about Dune the book is the way that it spoils itself constantly. The way that the narrative doesn't let there be a mystery, because everybody kind of like the narrator always knows everything. And so you always know everything. And so even if things aren't like fully explained to you, like if there's a character that has a secret or is about to betray somebody or whatever, you just know that already, because the book told you. Like this could have been a really exciting, suspenseful situation, but instead you already know what's going on. You already know who's the person who's got the secret, who's the person that's going to do the betraying. You just already know. And I think it can be interesting on a reread to then watch a situation unfold where you already know what's going to happen, where you already know who's doing the thing and kind of like watching it now unfold this time with that knowledge. But the first time through, if possible, it's kind of nice to be surprised. And there are exceptions, you know, I mean, a Greek tragedy does that a lot, you know, where you're told ahead of time, the Oracle tells the hero, you're going to die in this battle. And then they're like, I'm going to defy my fate. And then you watch them not defy their fate. And everything happens exactly as the Oracle said. And there's, there is like a kind of a fascination with this sort of inevitability of that tragedy as you watch it unfold and you can't use like you can't do anything to stop it, you know, it's like watching the train crash in slow motion where you can't do anything about it, you know, it's going to happen. So I get that. But I just feel like in a story like Dune, I don't know why that's necessary. I don't under I don't really see why the book is better for having spoiled itself. So I an argument could be made that I might agree with in certain stories like in certain tragedies and certain plays in certain whatever, where I think that the choice to tell the audience what is going to happen before it happens, you know, that it benefits the story in some way where like that does make it more tragic to watch it makes it more interesting to watch things something like that. I just don't feel like that's the case in Dune. I don't feel like the story is better for having spoiled itself. I just don't see it. Like, for me, no. So I really like that in Denis Villeneuve's movies, a lot of those types of twists, those types of, you know, reversals, that kind of thing, a lot of the time that's kept from you, you find it out when the characters find it out, you don't know ahead of time. It hasn't been pre-spoiled for you. So I'm not saying I don't really want to give any examples because if you haven't read it or seen it, then I don't want to spoil it because I do recommend both. I think Dune is a good book, and I think the movies are fantastic. And I think you should read slash watch them. But so there's like a particular character with a particular like arc that if you have read it and you have seen it, then you probably know what I'm talking about, where this particular plot line is 100% spoiled for you from the get go. At no point is this a mystery to you in the book, whereas in the film, you don't know this is going to happen. You don't know about this arc before it happens. And so when it does happen, it is a surprise. And then when you rewatch the movie, this time you do know that that's going to happen. And it can be really tense to watch it unfold this time knowing ahead of time how this is going to go and knowing what the characters don't know. So yeah, I just think that for that reason, like a lot of the pacing and a lot of the information delivery is just handled so much better in the films because there's more room for subtlety and nuance. It isn't constantly just like telling you everything like, let me discover it. Let me find it out. Let me kind of let it happen. And I understand it as it unfolds. Like the book keeps explaining things to you. And I'm like, stop explaining things to me. Let me just kind of experience this. And the movies, I think, allow you to just kind of experience it. They're not perfect. There's things they change. There's things they cut out, whatever. I just think like the vibe of the way that the story like is presented to you and like the way in which information is delivered to you and the pace at which information is delivered to you. I just prefer it so much better in the films to how Frank Herbert does it. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. Okay, less controversial now. Stardust. Neil Gaiman, I'm pretty sure, is on record as also agreeing with this. So it's not that how to take because the author himself is like, yeah, the movie is better. I'm not, I don't have full confirmation of that, but I'm fairly certain that that's the case. But yeah, Stardust is an okay book. Neil Gaiman is my favorite author. So, you know, don't be mad at me over anything on this list because even my own favorite author, I'm like, yeah, the movie was better. Stardust is among my least favorite Neil Gaiman books, though. I still, I mean, it's better than most, most books out there, most books in the world suck. So like, it's still good because Neil Gaiman wrote it, it's got good prose, it's a pretty good story. It's like decently well coupled together. I just know Neil Gaiman can do so much better. I also have read the book that inspired it and it does feel like a pale limitation of that. So anyway, Stardust, the book is kind of this like weird whimsical little fairy tale that takes place in England and also Fairyland. And it's kind of, it's like a little bit strange, but not in like a ha ha funny way. It's just like, that was a little weird. And it doesn't really like have any heart or humor or like intrigue, like it's kind of like missing the secret sauce of any flavor. And so I think the movie does so much better at kind of all of those sauces, where it makes it more adventurous, more exciting, also more humorous, also with more genuine heart and feeling. And so the movie just in every way like turned up everything to 11 turned up the entire experience. So the book just feels so like flat and lackluster as compared to the movie, because the movie injects so much life into this really kind of lifeless feeling story when you read the book. And the book is again, it's fine, but it's just like missing something, something vital. And yeah, the movie is just so much fun. The movie approaches the story much more in like a princess bride kind of way. I think a lot of people have made that comparison that Stardust feels like the princess bride. And that leads me to the next movie on my list, which is Princess Bride. I was so disappointed when I read the book, Princess Bride. And it's kind of a similar reason to Stardust, although worse in my opinion. So the princess bride, like the story is not actually as different from the book as is the case with Stardust. Stardust the film, the story is quite a bit different from the book. But the story in Princess Bride, it's once again, the book version is kind of missing heart. It's missing and it's missing, like it is humorous, but not humorous really in this way that's like genuinely amusing, if that makes sense. Like, you can tell that this is like meant to not be taken very seriously. So there's some things, some absurdities about it. But it doesn't, it's not like genuinely like I'm laughing and I'm really amused by it. And it's also missing the heart, like the characters, they're because they're kind of like, they're kind of ridiculous in the book. And so you don't really take them seriously. So you also kind of don't really feel for them because like you can't. And you're also not like really laughing about it either. So it's kind of like nothing, which is kind of the problem with Stardust. In Princess Bride the movie, the characters are both more humorous. So it's much more like genuinely laugh out loud funny. And also there's just so much more warmth and heart to the characters and not just kind of these like ridiculous like deconstructions of fairy tale archetypes. Like there's like Buttercup, for example. She's really so dim in the book. Like almost offensively so. She's like a complete idiot. And in the film, she's not maybe like the sharpest knife in the drawer. She's by no means like praised for her wit or anything like that. But she's sincere and she has she shows some courage. And you really, you know, she seems like a character that you want to root for. And the same is true for a lot of the other characters as well. Inigo Montoya is a little ridiculous, but like you really root for him and his revenge cause like you really feel for that. And the way they talk to each other, again, it's funny, but not in like all these are buffoons, like they're sweet and you root for them and you laugh with them and you laugh at them a bit as well. So yeah, the book is just like it feels so cold and lifeless to me compared to the movie, which I love the movie movies one of my all time faves. Next up again, perhaps controversially is the Count of Monte Cristo. I really that's one of my favorite classics. I really do love the Count of Monte Cristo. But there are some specific things about the plot that the movie fixes in my opinion that utterly changes the kind of conclusion of the story. But I in my opinion, it's a fantastic change. There's a lot of like specifics about the book because the movie has to condense so much that I love a lot of the intricacies of the revenge plot that have to kind of be simplified for the film. So there's things about the book that I do prefer. But there's some like key things about character relationships that are changed in the movie that one of the biggest ones is a big spoiler. So I'm not going to say what it is if you've seen the film and you've read the book that you know what it is. But there's another change that is not really that spoilery. And that is the change in the relationship between Edmondontes and Fernand Montego. In the book, Fernand is just kind like one of the many people that betrays Edmondontes. But in the film, they're like childhood best friends. And so the betrayal of Fernand, or the betrayal of Edmond by Fernand, is just so much more visceral and poignant and more, it just feels so much worse. Because he's not just like one of the people that had something to gain by betraying Edmond. He's somebody that ostensibly cared for Edmond that Edmond felt he could trust specifically. So that betrayal just like cuts so much deeper. And so then this whole story being a revenge story, because you just feel so much more keenly the betrayal of Fernand, that when Edmond really, really wants revenge, you really see why he would feel that way. Even though revenge is poisonous and is not a productive thing to do, you really see why he would just need revenge, especially against Fernand. And it just makes, I think, the experience of the story so much more visceral. And I really like that change. And lastly, and maybe most controversially, it's Lord of the Rings. I really love Lord of the Rings, the books. I really, really do. But I like the movies better. I did see the movies first. I saw them when they were coming out when I was a kid. And then we read the books later. And the books are beautiful. The prose is stunning, the poetry, and the songs and the imagery and the heart and everything. Like it's wonderful. It's a classic for a reason. But the movies have my whole heart. The Lord of the Rings movies are some of my all time favorite movies. Like if there was, if someone, you know, was like, you can only, you know, bring a handful of DVDs with you to this desert island. This is the only thing you're ever going to watch ever again. I'd probably choose the extended editions of The Lord of the Rings and like not really think twice about it. Just the casting is so perfect. And some of the small changes like Aragorn in particular, like that more than almost anything else. I just Aragorn in the books is kind of this like chatty hero character. And the instead the quiet enigmatic mysterious begrudging hero that we get in Vigo Morton's version of Aragorn. I just chef's kiss. I love that two pieces. I love it so much. And it's just so beautiful and so lush. And also, I like battles. And I know that that's not really the type of story that Tolkien was interested in telling. And that like just more portrayal of battle is more and more of a thing than modern books. But I like the sort of grim dark edge that The Lord of the Rings movies have that the film that I'm sorry that the books just didn't and couldn't and wouldn't because that's not really what Tolkien is about. But I love the Battle of Helms deep. I love like watching the carnage. I love all that. And the books just don't have that. That's again, that's not really what Tolkien was interested in doing. And so for the project of the books, like, I get why it's not there. And I don't necessarily even think the books would be better for it because battles tend to work better on screen than on page. It's rare that an author can write a battle where I care about reading it. Abercrombie is about one of the only ones I can think of where I enjoy reading battles if he's written them. So I don't necessarily think that the books would be better if there was a bunch of on page battles. I don't really think that but the movies have a bunch of battles and I like battles. And the music, the costumes, oh, just love it so much. The books are amazing, the movies are god dear. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's blasphemous, but it's the truth. And that's my my extremely controversial blasphemous terrible cancel worthy list. Let me know your terrible opinions in the comments down below. And yeah, if you haven't seen any of these movies, then I highly recommend you've got some watching to do. And if you think I'm heinous for all these opinions, then fair enough, I probably am. And yeah, see you when I see you.