Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:10 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
The Movie was Better Than the Book... 
Author Message
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
Alex wrote:
Jaws
Jurassic Park
2001: A Space Odyssey

Watchmen (just kidding!)


Jurassic Park? As much as I love the movie it's just a glorified monster/chase movie. The book is much more in depth with the science and moral issues of cloning and bio-engineering.


Wed May 27, 2009 8:18 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
One recent example for me is Angels & Demons, which I *shocker* enjoyed!

The movie is just more faster paced than the book. Among other things, it completely eliminates the endless first half and also gets rid of the more ridiculous aspects of the climax.

(Spoiler if you haven't read the book) In the book, the Camerlengo is actually the dead Pope's illegitimate son; we're led to believe for a good while that he finds the location of the bomb from some divine message from God (which is as dumb as it sounds); and at the end, the book wastes about three pages on a dull and endless speech about science and religion which he delivers to all the Cardinals. Thankfully, the movie got rid of all this crap and was all the better for it.

The Da Vinci Code followed the book word for word and turned out boring as hell.

Another example I can think of is No Country for Old Men. Liked the movie, and after three tries, I still can't read the entire book. Maybe it's Cormac McCarthy's writing, his minute descriptions of everything a character does ("Llewelyn stopped. He took out his handkerchief, blew his nose, put the handkerchief back in his pocket, scratched his balls, raised his arms, adjusted his cap, lowered his arms, put his hands in his pockets." And so on. The whole book goes on forever with stuff like this), but it bores the hell out of me every time. That, and the fact that he barely gives character descriptions.


Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:51 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
neco82 wrote:

Another example I can think of is No Country for Old Men. Liked the movie, and after three tries, I still can't read the entire book. Maybe it's Cormac McCarthy's writing, his minute descriptions of everything a character does ("Llewelyn stopped. He took out his handkerchief, blew his nose, put the handkerchief back in his pocket, scratched his balls, raised his arms, adjusted his cap, lowered his arms, put his hands in his pockets." And so on. The whole book goes on forever with stuff like this), but it bores the hell out of me every time. That, and the fact that he barely gives character descriptions.


The sentence in italics is the surefire sign you're reading a McCarthy novel. Sometimes he pares it down further by not giving characters any names.


Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:55 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
Prince Caspian does a great job of synthesizing and maturing the source material.
Jaws, Godfather go without saying.
Blade Runner: The Final Cut coupled with the book is amazing. I suggest watching/reading both to get the most out of it.
and,
surprisingly...

Quote:
Pretty much every novelization (is that a word?) of a movie is worse than the movie itself.


I disagree.
The Avengers Movie's book was MUCH better. It was based on an earlier script and wasn't plagued with Ralph Fiennes' and Uma Thurman's devastatingly awful take on my beloved Steed and Mrs. Peel... :cry:
Pokémon: The First Movie was neutered when it came over to America. The Japanese version was better and the novel was based off of that.

All the Bond films except for From Russia With Love are better than the books.


Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:32 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
jbucksnb wrote:
All the Bond films except for From Russia With Love are better than the books.
The novel Live and Let Die has more in common with the very popular early Connery movies than it does with its farcical movie counterpart.


Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:46 pm
Online
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7423
Location: Easton, MD
Post Movies that are better than the book
As fellow movie fans, I'm sure you're also annoyed at hearing how the book is "always" better than the movie. Yes, admittedly, a majority of adaptations are probably worse. The complexity of literature isn't always well-served by the needs of making the story "cinematic," and nuance and subtlety are often lost. However, there are still numerous films that have improved upon their source novel, and I wanted to bring some of them up and score a few points for film vs. literature, even if it's ultimately a losing battle...

The Godfather: Puzo's novel is smutty fun, but it's unbelievably pulpy (anyone else remember the subplot devoted to Sonny's girlfriend's gynecology?). The film is an American masterpiece.
Psycho: A slight little crime novel that no one would remember if Hitchcock hadn't turned it into an iconic and masterful horror film.
Jaws: The book has dumb subplots about Hooper and Brody's wife, less tension, and an anti-climax of an ending. The movie is an incredibly successful fusion of horror and action that most certainly does not have an anti-climax.
Goldfinger: What comes across as puerile and misogynistic in Fleming's writing becomes charming when put on screen with Connery in the lead, and never was that more apparent than Goldfinger.
Hannibal: This one gets points not because the movie is any good (it isn't--it's actually pretty awful) but because the book was so beyond bad and over the top that by comparison the film is subtle and restrained.

You see, my theory is that good/great books often make shitty films because the things that made them such good literature are lost in screen. But pulpy, less-sophisticated books often become good/great films because they lend themselves more towards cinema.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:04 am
Profile
Post Re: Movies that are better than the book
Twilight. The book is an abortion on literature, the movie is strictly mediocre.


Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:21 pm
Post Re: Movies that are better than the book
4 pages of prior art exists:
http://reelviews.net/reelviewsforum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=597

Once again, I suggest a merger.


Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:46 pm
Post Re: Movies that are better than the book
L.A. Confidential!


Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:09 pm
Online
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7423
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Movies that are better than the book
Oh I'm sorry that was before my time. Is there a way to search through the forums that I'm not aware of?

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:19 pm
Profile
Post Re: Movies that are better than the book
JamesKunz wrote:
Oh I'm sorry that was before my time. Is there a way to search through the forums that I'm not aware of?


Well, I would suggest using the search tool but it's such a hassle to actually search stuff that it's not worth it. And I would merge it but I can't find it on the merge topic area


Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:41 pm
Post Re: Movies that are better than the book
"Fight Club" is a good example. Chuck Palahniuk is an interesting guy and usually has good concepts, but his writing is sadly limited. The book, while probably more intimate than the movie, just doesn't have the same impact viscerally or intellectually. His other book to movie adaptation, "Choke", also works better as a movie than as a book.


Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:57 pm
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
"The 25th Hour." Interestingly, that one was made into a screenplay by its original author, so it's a good example of a screenwriter managing to improve his own source material ... and the book wasn't terrible to start with!


Fri Dec 18, 2009 7:16 pm
Online
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7423
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
A Simple Plan is an over-the-top potboiler of a book and a masterpiece of cinema

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Fri Dec 18, 2009 7:55 pm
Profile
Post Re: Movies that are better than the book
JamesKunz wrote:
Oh I'm sorry that was before my time. Is there a way to search through the forums that I'm not aware of?


No need to apologize. You've started quite a few nice threads and this would have been another if it didn't already exist. Besides, I had fun reading through all these old posts.

I can't think of too many examples because I'm usually satisfied with one medium. If I like the movie I don't really care to seek out the source material. Similarly, if I like a book I don't clamour for it to be adapted into a film. I never get that. If you adore the book, why would you want a movie? You'll most likely be disappointed.

I'm not sure that I fully agree about on great books = shitty movie either. I'll offer The Lord of the Rings and A Clockwork Orange as examples where both were great. However, I cede that those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Someone did mention it, but I'll second Starship Troopers. I always heard just how much better the book was, but I don't agree. The novel is certainly more ambitious, but I like that the filmmakers excised large swathes of the book and distilled it into its best pulpy parts.


Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:20 am
Online
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7423
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
The novel Starship Troopers also has some really maudlin parts like when Rico meets his father coincidentally and they hug and cry and it's so beautiful. I'm not sure the movie is better, but it's certainly more enjoyable. As is Starship Troopers 3: Marauder, which pretty much defines campy fun.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:02 am
Profile
Online
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7423
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
Oh and the movie version of The Manchurian Candidate is far superior

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Sun Dec 20, 2009 8:20 pm
Profile
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
I'd really love to contribute more to this thread, but as I already mentioned I don't really like crossing movie/book streams. Pity that so few others read.

JamesKunz wrote:
Oh and the movie version of The Manchurian Candidate is far superior


Which version? :)


Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:52 pm
Online
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7423
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
The original of course :D. The book has an entire 50-page subplot about one of the characters trying to have sex with Eskimos. I wish I was making that up.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:52 am
Profile
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
JamesKunz wrote:
The original of course :D. The book has an entire 50-page subplot about one of the characters trying to have sex with Eskimos. I wish I was making that up.


Sex with Eskimos? I think you made that sound more awesome than it is, but I'm still weirdly interested.

Again, I'm straying a bit offtopic but I was only half joking when I asked which version.

As much as I like the original Manchurian Candidate there are still a few things which bother me.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
1. Why would the lady on the train want to help a sweaty and paranoid Sinatra? I know some folks speculate she was undercover, but I don't buy it.

2. It seems incredibly unlikely to me that a woman would dress up in a playing card costume which just happens to be the trigger for Sinatra's character.

3. The ending. In a deliberate attempt at misdirection the director films Sinatra aiming through the crosshairs of the sniper at someone he has no intention to shoot. The only reason he does this is to create suspense.


I definitely left out a few, and I hope that I got the others right. It's been a long time since I've seen it. I specifically remember that I registered for imdb just to discuss this film and my problems with it. If memory serves right, the remake clears most of those up.


Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:50 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr