The movie was better than the book [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

Captain_Video

09-05-2007, 04:33 PM

It is very rare for me to like something more than the book, as usually the original writer knew what they where doing, however there are some rare cases of brilliance from a Director that outshines the source material ( its the exception, not the rule ).

The Shining in my opinion is better than the book, though the book is great, The Shining being one of the best horror movies ever shot, The Shining at best is a "good" horror novel, so this is a case of the medium winning out rather than the content.

Dr Strangelove, is better than its source material, but to be fair the source material was essentially the genesis of the idea, much like The Terminator I would say only an acknowledgement is needed, it is hardly a straight adaptation.

Lord of the Rings I am torn on, I would have to say it is equal to the book, neither better nor superior, I miss the songs and the rich fantasy culture present in the novels, which would obviously not work in a visual medium.

Yeah, those are mine.

Infernorhythm

09-05-2007, 04:52 PM

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (the Gene Wilder one, not Tim Burton's twisted take). Genius, genius movie, and Wilder nailed it in every scene.

Also The Masque of the Red Death. Poe is good, but Vincent Price brought it to the screen flawlessly.

ragnarok_2012

09-05-2007, 05:00 PM

I prefer Godfather the movie to the book.

Though I think it's a fun read, I think it was tightened up a bit for the movie.

Also, the book insists upon itself. :D

Expletive Deleted

09-05-2007, 05:08 PM

Showtime's DEXTER is better than the book it's based on. The first season, at least.

StoneGold

09-05-2007, 05:16 PM

If you want to get technical, the movie Blade was better than the one book titled Blade to that point, the post-Nightstalkers book. I don't know if I'd call it better than Tomb of Dracula, but the two were so different animals, it's apples and oranges.

EZMOHR

09-05-2007, 05:24 PM

You know, I hate to admit it...but I like Interview With The Vampire the movie better than the book.

Hey, it was 1994, I was a geek, and every other person was reading/watching the material..........

DirtyHarrington

09-05-2007, 05:33 PM

V for Vendetta was way better as a movie than a comic book IMO.

Scorpion13

09-05-2007, 05:34 PM

Seconding the Shinning.

I actually like it that the film doesnt try to make Jack into anything like a sympathetic character like in the book. In the book, I honestly had no sympathy for the guy at all.

Plus, the book cant possibly have the musical score, so thats a minus for it as well.

Scorpion13

09-05-2007, 05:36 PM

I prefer Godfather the movie to the book.

Though I think it's a fun read, I think it was tightened up a bit for the movie.

Also, the book insists upon itself. :D

I agree. The movie managed to tighten up the story without losing any of the essentials. In fact, it strengthend some parts.

The book just has so much more stuff about the characters and the world in which they live, The history of the Corleone family, thier small war with Al Capone, the different families....just alot of good stuff. And its an easy read too, which helps alot.

Jared

09-05-2007, 06:09 PM

The Fellowship of the Ring outdoes the book it's based on for two reasons:
1. Boromir is a more sympathetic character.
2. No Tom F*cking Bombadil!

Scorpion13

09-05-2007, 06:14 PM

The Fellowship of the Ring outdoes the book it's based on for two reasons:
1. Boromir is a more sympathetic character.
2. No Tom F*cking Bombadil!

1. What? He's way more sympathetic in the book! In the movie he comes off as a dirtbag.

2. I liked Tom Bombadil. I honestly cone figure out why people have a problem with reading that part. Its like only 30 or so pages. Thats it.

EZMOHR

09-05-2007, 06:17 PM

1. What? He's way more sympathetic in the book! In the movie he comes off as a dirtbag.

2. I liked Tom Bombadil. I honestly cone figure out why people have a problem with reading that part. Its like only 30 or so pages. Thats it.

Man I felt he came off as better in the movie. Yeah he was a dirtbag, but you get to see him change on screen....in the book, I just felt a little, man I'm glad he died.

Scorpion13

09-05-2007, 06:20 PM

Man I felt he came off as better in the movie. Yeah he was a dirtbag, but you get to see him change on screen....in the book, I just felt a little, man I'm glad he died.

Well, at least inthe book you get the reasons why he did what he did. And you really did get the understanding that he was just a normal guy who couldnt hang with the rest of the epic heroes, while in the movie you got none of that.

EZMOHR

09-05-2007, 06:22 PM

Well, at least inthe book you get the reasons why he did what he did. And you really did get the understanding that he was just a normal guy who couldnt hang with the rest of the epic heroes, while in the movie you got none of that.

To each their own I suppose. I got from the movie he wasn't the right man for the job, from the time he touched the sword and threw it to the ground, to the time he wanted the ring, until the bloody end...he just was a man and that was all.

Black Atom

09-05-2007, 06:24 PM

I don't have a huge problem with Tom Bombadil, but I think Tolkien was high when he introduced him. He doesn't even fit into Tolkien's otherwise carefully-constructed mythology. Honestly, WTF is Bombadil? His appearance is very much a deux ex machina.

Willminus2

09-05-2007, 06:25 PM

The Fellowship of the Ring outdoes the book it's based on for two reasons:
1. Boromir is a more sympathetic character.
2. No Tom F*cking Bombadil!

I will second this motion as long as we are talking about the extended edition. I freaking hated Tom Bombadil, that was the most annoying long 30 pages ever in fiction. Wow what a waste of time.

Chiasm

09-05-2007, 06:27 PM

The Fellowship of the Ring outdoes the book it's based on for two reasons:
1. Boromir is a more sympathetic character.
2. No Tom F*cking Bombadil!

Definitely agree with #2. I hated Tom and thought his part was stupid.

Black Atom

09-05-2007, 06:28 PM

Well, at least inthe book you get the reasons why he did what he did. And you really did get the understanding that he was just a normal guy who couldnt hang with the rest of the epic heroes, while in the movie you got none of that.

I think there's stuff that supports Boromir's character in the extended version of the movie that might not be there in the theatrical version (I'm not sure, since I've never seen the theatrical version and don't remember, off-hand, what the additions were). For example, there's a great moment where Boromir pleads with Aragorn to take the Fellowship to Gondor and he's really hurt when Aragorn shoots him down.

Chiasm

09-05-2007, 06:31 PM

1. Return of the King because it skipped the whole Scouring of the Shire part. While I didn't hate that part it was highly anticlimactic after the rest of the series. It was also better paced than the book by putting part of the Two Towers in it because in the book Frodo and Sam basically did nothing for most of the book.

2. I'm gonna take flak for this one but I'm gonna say Starship Troopers. The book wasn't bad but the movie was awesome in a campy sort of way. Yeah the acting pretty much sucked but the acting sucked in Star Wars too and I don't hear complaints about it.

3. Shawshank Redemption - Granted comparing a short story to a full movie is a bit unfair but the movie was still better.

4. It - Simply because it did not have that one scene in it. If you've read the book you know what scene I'm talking about. Edit: I had been considering the Stand but decided I liked the book better and then thought about It but my brain being slow typed The Stand instead of It as the book title.

EZMOHR

09-05-2007, 06:36 PM

1. Return of the King because it skipped the whole Scouring of the Shire part. While I didn't hate that part it was highly anticlimactic after the rest of the series. It was also better paced than the book by putting part of the Two Towers in it because in the book Frodo and Sam basically did nothing for most of the book.

2. I'm gonna take flak for this one but I'm gonna say Starship Troopers. The book wasn't bad but the movie was awesome in a campy sort of way. Yeah the acting pretty much sucked but the acting sucked in Star Wars too and I don't hear complaints about it.

3. Shawshank Redemption - Granted comparing a short story to a full movie is a bit unfair but the movie was still better.

4. The Stand - Simply because it did not have that one scene in it. If you've read the book you know what scene I'm talking about.

I like Shawshank for one reason....it's almost the same as the story except for the part that comes to Tommy. I think it is somewhat more noble (albeit sucky or him), that in the book he totally sells out Andy, and in the movie he dies for Andy. I like the way the movie deals with Tommy better.

ultramandingo

09-05-2007, 06:50 PM

..... ditto godfather - anyone ever read jaws? or the exorcist... or alien ??? in alien they kind of describe the alien as a kinda giant chicken thing . of corse the movies all had amazing directors at their prime

J. Robb

09-05-2007, 07:02 PM

The Wizard of Oz: classic book, but even more classic movie.

The Commitments: love the book, but it's so short the movie is able to flesh out the secondary characters better. Plus, I just love listening to music more than reading about it.

The Mutt

09-05-2007, 07:06 PM

Alien was a book?

Jaws absolutely. Same with Godfather, Starship Troopers and Maltese Falcon. I strongly disagree with The Shining.

I'd add A Simple Plan, The Firm and Die Hard.

Matthew E

09-05-2007, 07:15 PM

I liked Tom Bombadil. He was a merry fellow!

For The Maltese Falcon, I'd say that the book and movie were about even.

Movies that were better than the book:

- Forrest Gump. The book was a plodding picaresque comedy that wasn't funny; the movie, despite its real flaws, was actually about something.
- The African Queen. The movie was better for two reasons: it had Bogart, and it had a real ending. (Nothing against Hepburn, but her character was the same as in the book. Bogart's character was much more interesting because he was playing him.)
- Wag the Dog. It was nothing like the book, which was called American Hero or something like that. And it's good that it was nothing like the book, because the book was close to unreadable.

Scorpion13

09-05-2007, 07:19 PM

4. The Stand - Simply because it did not have that one scene in it. If you've read the book you know what scene I'm talking about.

What? With the Kid?

Eh. King has had much, much worse in his stuff. Like in IT. You know what Im talking about.

StoneGold

09-05-2007, 07:23 PM

in alien they kind of describe the alien as a kinda giant chicken thing .

Alien was written by Alan Dean Foster. Which pretty much means it was a novelization of the movie.

Chiasm

09-05-2007, 08:42 PM

What? With the Kid?

Eh. King has had much, much worse in his stuff. Like in IT. You know what Im talking about.

Yeah, I screwed up as I actually just noticed and had just edited my post before seeing what you said. I was hoping no one would notice.:o I was thinking of IT the whole time but wrote The Stand for some reason. And yes we are thinking of the same scene. You can't help but think of that scene in IT when thinking about scenes are just so wrong in so many ways.

Since someone will invariably ask this is what I'm talking about and it does not occur in the movie nor is it even remotely hinted at. But in the book After the kids defeat monster they are all frightened and lost in the tunnels. The girl, whatever her name was, decides that they will all die unless they calm down and think rationally about getting out. So what better way to calm down then to have a gangbang. The boys (these are 12 and 13 year olds remember) then all gangbang the girl in far too graphic detail after which they escape. The movie mercifully left this out.

marshal99

09-05-2007, 09:25 PM

The Running man - totally different from the Stephen King short story that it was supposely based on. It became an arnold action movie and it was entertaining in that aspect i suppose.

Misery - another Stephen King adaptation , i thought the movie got the novel down right and surpass it especially how scary Katie Bates was in the movie.

Vampire$ - the novel by John Steakley that i read ages ago before the movie was kind of bland. John Carpenter's movie wasn't outstanding but it was better than the book.

Lifeforce - i read that novel by Colin Wilson (I think) years before the movie and the book was average but the movie with that hot naked space chick walking around in the buff will always be better than anything written in the book. :D

Matthew E

09-05-2007, 09:40 PM

That scene in IT actually made sense to me. Because these were kids, and they had just done something harrowing and outfreaking, and were lost not just physically and emotionally, but also, perhaps, supernaturally. Extreme measures were necessary to bring them back to the 'real' world in all of those ways, and that scene was a description of those extreme measures.

Plus it reinforced the notion that the friendship among these seven kids was an unusual, and unusually strong, one.

Plus it was kind of a crossing-the-threshold-towards-adulthood scene, which was a sort of a theme of the whole novel.

Sure, it was kind of horrifying to contemplate, but remember: it's a horror novel. Just because you weren't expecting to have this particular panic button in your mind pushed doesn't mean it isn't fair game for King to do it.

Tazirai

09-05-2007, 09:55 PM

If they do "The Mist" correct, then it will be better than the book. The book isnt already a book, btu a short story. And a DAMN good one to.

Reptisaurus!

09-05-2007, 09:59 PM

Earthsea mini series on sci-fi was better than the two books it was based on.

I don't know you or anything, but I'm gonna make a wild guess. Your taste in general skews towards a preference for things that are absolutely horrible. Like you and your friends are all driving and your like "AIR SUPPLY! Turn THIS S#$% UP!"

Am I right?

Ryan K

09-05-2007, 10:11 PM

Since the other thread was talking about comics initially, the first thing to pop in my head was A History of Violence.

marshal99

09-05-2007, 10:24 PM

If they do "The Mist" correct, then it will be better than the book. The book isnt already a book, btu a short story. And a DAMN good one to.

If you played the first silent hill game , that will surely remind you of the mist as it did for me. Everything in a fog , not knowing what's out there in the fog and can hardly see a few feet in front of you.

Scorpion13

09-05-2007, 10:35 PM

Since the other thread was talking about comics initially, the first thing to pop in my head was A History of Violence.

You know, I have to agree.

the movie wasnt any great shakes, so I thought the source material would be better.

It really wasnt. The movie treated the idea very seriously, the comic was very much...well, a comic book.

literally exaggerated

09-05-2007, 10:37 PM

StoneGold

09-05-2007, 11:43 PM

the Princess Bride. I know some prefer the novel, but IMO the movie is a lot tighter, and the lighter tone it takes suits the setting perfectly. Plus, the actors all just nail their parts so perfectly- I get a much better sense of the characters as people from watching a few minutes of the movie than reading pages of backstory.

It helps the movie and the book had the same writer. And any changes you could just chalk up to the grandfather telling it differently. Of course, you also got to skip the interminably long prologue that didn't have anything really to do with the story. Which might not have been as bad if you hadn't seen the movie, but I already had, and was waiting for the guts of the story.

StoneGold

09-05-2007, 11:44 PM

Grapes of Wraith. Just because the movie ended where the book should have, with Tom Joad giving his speech and leaving the family. No old man tit-sucking.

Toku King

09-05-2007, 11:46 PM

I'd go with "Holes" and "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory".

"Holes", in my opinion, was one of the best movies in decades. No joke. It was filled with drama, excitement, comedy, and great dialogue. The book was good as well, but it felt to stiff, while "Holes" was filled with everything that made a movie a classic.

"Willy Wonka" was easily one of my favorite movies as a kid. Gene Wilder was the perfect actor for Wonka, and the movie moved so well. The changes from the book to the movie were actually improvements to me(Golden Geese>Squirrels), and it lacked that sense of dread that made you feel like magic was bad(which is a good thing).

"The Princess Bride" was an amazing movie(and a favorite from the 80s), but I never read the book.

StoneGold

09-05-2007, 11:52 PM

I have to disagree with the Willy Wonka thing. Yes, the movie was good. But the book was a darkly evil thing. Made the movie look positively tame in comparison.

Arvandor

09-06-2007, 01:37 AM

Jurassic Park. In the book the characters are all two-dimensional stereotypes. It's only in the film that they become in any way relatable.

Kaiju

09-06-2007, 07:30 AM

I have to disagree about Vampire$ being better than the book. Vampire$ starts off a bit slow but once a certain event happens it blows the doors off anything in the movie.

The movie and book more or less have the same opening act but everything after that is totally different. The main vampire in the movie and novel are very different as well.

Supposedly John Carpenter wanted make a more direct take on the book but the movie budget was slashed and the script was rewritten just before the movie was shot.

HomerJay

09-06-2007, 08:23 AM

The Shining in my opinion is better than the book, though the book is great, The Shining being one of the best horror movies ever shot, The Shining at best is a "good" horror novel, so this is a case of the medium winning out rather than the content.
I like the movie more, but I'm not sure that it's necessarily better than the book. It's scarier than the book, but the book of course has more depth and is more thrilling than scary.

I actually like it that the film doesnt try to make Jack into anything like a sympathetic character like in the book. In the book, I honestly had no sympathy for the guy at all.
King has said that he thinks Kubrick either overthought the original text, or didn't think about it enough.

What made King stand out in the beginning was his ability to find his horror in mundane things and setting his stories in the context of everyday life. He said his initial inspiration for THE SHINING came when he first became a father and his kids were toddlers. He was fascinated with how quickly the emotional pendulum could swing from heart-breaking love to almost violent anger in regard to dealing with his children (something that Kubrick only touched upon in the movie). He just took that concept and added a supernatural element to it. Kubrick did away with Jack's character arc, preferring to make him a monster all the way to the end instead of King's choosing to have Jack come to his senses and be the story's martyr (something King LOVES). I think maybe the boiler metaphor in the book was a little too literal for Kubrick too.

If they do "The Mist" correct, then it will be better than the book. The book isnt already a book, but a short story. And a DAMN good one to.
I'm cautiously optimistic. The thing that works best about THE MIST is it's ambiguity. However, Darabont "gets" King perhaps better than any other person in Hollywood other than Rob Reiner, so I have my fingers crossed. Everything I see regarding it (even the sets) seem to be dead-on.

Duy

09-06-2007, 08:48 AM

Ghost World. It just seemed to take what the comic did, except do it in a more unified method.

Toku King

09-06-2007, 08:57 AM

I have to disagree with the Willy Wonka thing. Yes, the movie was good. But the book was a darkly evil thing. Made the movie look positively tame in comparison.

Which made it less enjoyable.

Another one is "300". Frank's graphic novel was neat, but the movie's action and more relatable characters made it better in my book.

JDogindy

09-06-2007, 09:16 AM

The Wizard of Oz: classic book, but even more classic movie.

I looked at the book, and I noticed several parts that weren't in it (the Tin Man and the cougar, the people made of china, and the hammerheaded creatures) but those parts stunk.

StoneGold

09-06-2007, 10:28 AM

Which made it less enjoyable.

For little girls with sensitive skin, sure.

thespianphryne

09-06-2007, 11:01 AM

[...]

Lifeforce - i read that novel by Colin Wilson (I think) years before the movie and the book was average but the movie with that hot naked space chick walking around in the buff will always be better than anything written in the book. :D
I haven't read the book. Can't even get my hands on a copy of it, right now but there were two reasons I like the movie: 1)Mathilda May 2)Steve Railsback/Patrick Stewart

I'd go with "Holes" and "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory".

"Holes", in my opinion, was one of the best movies in decades. No joke. It was filled with drama, excitement, comedy, and great dialogue. The book was good as well, but it felt to stiff, while "Holes" was filled with everything that made a movie a classic.
In my opinion, Holes the movie was a dumbing down of everything that was good about the back. Talk about LCD: everything that was subtle and meaningful in the book was tossed aside for scatological pratfalls in the movie lessening its impact as a transcendental piece of literature.

"Willy Wonka" was easily one of my favorite movies as a kid. Gene Wilder was the perfect actor for Wonka, and the movie moved so well. The changes from the book to the movie were actually improvements to me(Golden Geese>Squirrels), and it lacked that sense of dread that made you feel like magic was bad(which is a good thing).

[....]
As whimsical as the movie is, the thing that makes the book is the sense of malice that surrounds Willy Wonka. It's a mediaeval morality tale: dark and disturbing is the order of the day. The movie renders the lessons of the book completely impotent by stripping it of that dark power. I'll take the book over the movie any day.

---

I can't believe no one's brought up The Silence of the Lambs yet. Decent enough novel, but the movie is good: tight and tense with all the superfluous bits tossed out. Much better as a movie.

-Das

mattx110

09-06-2007, 11:12 AM

I can't believe no one's brought up The Silence of the Lambs yet. Decent enough novel, but the movie is good: tight and tense with all the superfluous bits tossed out. Much better as a movie.

-Das

well, no imaginary lecter in your head is gonna equal anthony hopkins unless you have a really sick mind (which explains why you're reading silence of the lambs a bit).

some good shakespeare film versions are pretty good... does he get a pass cause he's a legendary playwrite?

Cleric of Hell's Brigade

09-06-2007, 11:18 AM

Eaters of the Dead sucked as a book. I mean sucked bad.

Now, 13th Warrior, the movie version of Eaters of the Dead, was great. Everyone in my family liked that movie.

StoneGold

09-06-2007, 11:44 AM

As whimsical as the movie is, the thing that makes the book is the sense of malice that surrounds Willy Wonka. It's a mediaeval morality tale: dark and disturbing is the order of the day. The movie renders the lessons of the book completely impotent by stripping it of that dark power. I'll take the book over the movie any day.

So indeed, you are not a little girl with sensitive skin.

I think I may be the only person who didn't like the Silence of the Lambs movie. I didn't see it till like a decade after it originally came out though, and had seen all the good bits parodied in a dozen places. Really robbed the movie of its impact, made it feel almost like a parody itself.

Scorpion13

09-06-2007, 11:55 AM

I like the movie more, but I'm not sure that it's necessarily better than the book. It's scarier than the book, but the book of course has more depth and is more thrilling than scary.

King has said that he thinks Kubrick either overthought the original text, or didn't think about it enough.

What made King stand out in the beginning was his ability to find his horror in mundane things and setting his stories in the context of everyday life. He said his initial inspiration for THE SHINING came when he first became a father and his kids were toddlers. He was fascinated with how quickly the emotional pendulum could swing from heart-breaking love to almost violent anger in regard to dealing with his children (something that Kubrick only touched upon in the movie). He just took that concept and added a supernatural element to it. Kubrick did away with Jack's character arc, preferring to make him a monster all the way to the end instead of King's choosing to have Jack come to his senses and be the story's martyr (something King LOVES). I think maybe the boiler metaphor in the book was a little too literal for Kubrick too.

Well, dont get me wrong, the book is one of my favorites. It really is. But it just doesnt have the same impact for me as something else of his from that period like Salems Lot or The Dead Zone. Alot of things contributed to it like the hedge animals coming to life, or the part with the wasps.

I think in the case of the story that was being told, the more subdued, psychological menace of Kubrick's film fit better.

And as for Jack, I understand what King was trying to say, but while I get the message, it still doesnt make Jack any more likeable or sympathetic to me. And the last minute redemption wasnt handled nearly as well as King would be able to do later.

thespianphryne

09-06-2007, 12:13 PM

[...]

I think I may be the only person who didn't like the Silence of the Lambs movie. I didn't see it till like a decade after it originally came out though, and had seen all the good bits parodied in a dozen places. Really robbed the movie of its impact, made it feel almost like a parody itself.

Yeah, that'll kill the mood. Did you see the French & Saunders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrF3U8Y5oOE) bit of the infamous first meeting.

-Das

Ryan K

09-06-2007, 12:15 PM

some good shakespeare film versions are pretty good... does he get a pass cause he's a legendary playwrite?

Well they're plays, they're not novels. Their function is to be performed.

Jared

09-06-2007, 01:23 PM

That scene in IT

Sure, it was kind of horrifying to contemplate, but remember: it's a horror novel. Just because you weren't expecting to have this particular panic button in your mind pushed doesn't mean it isn't fair game for King to do it.

If the implication were that IT was somehow forcing or influencing them, then I think the scene would be more tolerable. But instead, we're told just the opposite; that what's happening is good and right and maybe even mystically ordained by The Other/God. And I still think there's no reason to describe it so explicitly. I know big King fans who say there's nothing quite like it in his other works, so I choose to believe he was either high at the time, or just wanted to test the limits of his success and see if he could actually write something that'd be controversial. I'm not old enough to recall if there was much controversy when the book came out, but I've never heard of any.

Matthew E

09-06-2007, 01:35 PM

If the implication were that IT was somehow forcing or influencing them, then I think the scene would be more tolerable. But instead, we're told just the opposite; that what's happening is good and right and maybe even mystically ordained by The Other/God.

That's my point. Horror!

And I still think there's no reason to describe it so explicitly.

It's been quite a while since I read it, but I don't recall it being particularly explicit. I mean, it's clear what's going on, but I think you'll get more explicit description in your average romance novel.

I now big King fans who say there's nothing quite like it in his other works, so I choose to believe he was either high at the time, or just wanted to test the limits of his success and see if he could actually write something that'd be controversial. I'm not old enough to recall if there was much controversy when the book came out, but I've never heard of any.

I don't consider myself a big King fan, although I've read most of his stuff; I agree that there was no comparable scene in any of his other books (although there were many others equally creepy in different ways). I don't recall any controversy either, but then again this was before the internet; I'm not sure where I would have heard about it. I think he just had an idea of how he wanted to tell the story, and I think it worked the way it was supposed to.

LtMarvel

09-06-2007, 01:52 PM

A twist on the other thread. Alot of people will generally comment on movies adapted from another source that "it wasn't as good as the book."

Are there any instances where the movie was better than the book and an improvement?
300. They took out Miller's rediculous obscenities.

Jared

09-06-2007, 01:57 PM

1. What? He's way more sympathetic in the book! In the movie he comes off as a dirtbag.

I always felt like Boromir in the book was never more than cold, stoic, aristocratic warrior type. I thought he fell to the ring more due to pride (in the book) than from his desperate desire to defend his people. Tolkien never let us see his heart the way that Sean Bean's performance does. And little touches like Boromir bonding with the Hobbits help alot too. I felt nothing at all in the book when Boromir went nuts, or when I learned how he died. In the movie, I almost felt as if I'd gotten some salt in my eye.

2. I liked Tom Bombadil. I honestly cone figure out why people have a problem with reading that part. Its like only 30 or so pages. Thats it.

It's 30 pages that feels like 300 because the narrative grinds to screeching halt for the duration. It also undermines the main thrust of the story; at a time when the threat of the One Ring is still being impressed upon the reader, this mysterious sing-song dandy shows up and completely no-sells its affects. IIRC, he even makes the Ring disappear!

Jmacq1

09-06-2007, 01:58 PM

It's been quite a while since I read it, but I don't recall it being particularly explicit. I mean, it's clear what's going on, but I think you'll get more explicit description in your average romance novel.

Correct. The descriptions of the physical act(s) themselves were fairly vague, and the scene was conveyed primarily through dialogue, if I recall correctly. It really wasn't terribly explicit that I can remember. But I tend to think the shocking nature of the event may have amplified it in the minds of the readers.

As for a more recent example towards the original topic: "Stardust"

Not that the book wasn't quite entertaining in and of itself, but the movie version, while significantly different (and toned-down in the more "adult" portions) was one of the best I've seen this year.

Reptisaurus!

09-06-2007, 02:49 PM

Ghost World. It just seemed to take what the comic did, except do it in a more unified method.

If you mean removed every trace of subtlety and nuance and replaced 'em with simplified Hollywood formula designed not to scare the audience then you're right.

My favorite thing about the Ghost World movie is that it was SO clear that Clowes intended his comics for a smarter audience. I dunno... It's kind of petty and kind of a really bad kind of geek pride, but I liked being one of the "rarified few" comic readers.

HectorP

09-06-2007, 04:00 PM

I too have to defend the It novel compared to the adapted version. The Losers' Club scene isn't explicit or malicious, and after all it's a horror novel peppered with homophobia, the murder of children, women abuse, animal cruelty and other really nasty stuff. The adaptation is good, but I prefer the novel for at least a reason: the ending of the novel is bittersweet, with the Losers forgetting again about their last adventure in Derry (something repeated in Insomnia, I don't know what's up with that), and it has the unforgettable image of them walking into the hotel after they killed It, with the reflection in the doors showing the whole group, including Eddie who died in It's lair.

Scorpion13

09-06-2007, 04:07 PM

I always felt like Boromir in the book was never more than cold, stoic, aristocratic warrior type. I though he fell to the ring more due to pride than his desperate desire to defend his people. Tolkien never let us see his heart the way that Sean Bean's performance does. And little touches like Boromir bonding with the Hobbits help alot too. I felt nothing at all in the book when I Boromir went nuts, or when I learned how he died. In the movie, I almost felt as if I'd gotten some salt in my eye.

2. I liked Tom Bombadil. I honestly cone figure out why people have a problem with reading that part. Its like only 30 or so pages. Thats it.

It's 30 pages that feels like 300 because the narrative grinds to screeching halt for the duration. It also undermines the main thrust of the story; at a time when the threat of the One Ring are still being impressed upon the reader, this mysterious sing-song dandy shows up and completely no-sells its affects. IIRC, he even makes the Ring disappear![/QUOTE]

1. Well then we just have differing opinions on it, because it really just felt like Boromir was a jerk in the movie, but in the books it was made clear that he was a good, tough guy who in any other situation would have been a hero for the ages, but he just didnt have that certain something and he was taken by the ring.

2. I didnt feel the narrative came to a halt with the Bombadil part, and I thought it was important because it gave you a feel for why they were doing it, along with the sequences on Lorien and Fanghorn and Minas Tirith, etc.

I think the books honestly could have stood to have it in there. I mean, really, without little things like that, the whole thing would have been one dark-ass story. Seriously. The whole first have of th Fellowship of the Ring reads more like a horror story then your typical fantasy novel. It lightens up a little in some parts, but then it goes back to being dark again.

As for the scene in IT, Im pretty sure King has said in interviews that he was really on drugs bad at the time. He said that he was so coked up that he doesnt remember writing the next book The Tommyknockers at all.

And while I know all the reasoning behind the scene and whatnot, it stil doesnt make it any less fucked up for me.

HectorP

09-06-2007, 04:30 PM

As for the scene in IT, Im pretty sure King has said in interviews that he was really on drugs bad at the time. He said that he was so coked up that he doesnt remember writing the next book The Tommyknockers at all.

And while I know all the reasoning behind the scene and whatnot, it stil doesnt make it any less fucked up for me.

King seemed to be on drugs during all the 80s and earlier. The one I remember him saying he wished he could remember writing was Cujo. As for the scene, well it doesn't ruin the book any for me, but I can understand the decision of not including it in the mini-series (but not the implication that King is a pedophile).

The Mutt

09-06-2007, 04:48 PM

The era of disaster novels and disaster movies was short but it gave us a ton of book/movie pairs that are neck and neck in the Suckitude Derby. I think Towering Inferno deserves special notice for being better than both of the books it was based on.

Captain_Video

09-06-2007, 04:55 PM

I can see what people are saying about old Tom Bombadil but to me it fits in with the leisurely early tone of the book, it is easing you in slowly and it is a sort of amusing thing touching on the mysticism of the wood they are passing through, it does set a mood, it sort of reminds of a David Lynch movie how esoteric that section is.

I do remember it being hard going though as well, maybe a trimmed down Tom Bombadil in the book would have been nice, but then Tolkein is not so good at being trimmed down in any sense.

I like Tom Bombadill 'o'

mattx110

09-06-2007, 10:53 PM

Well they're plays, they're not novels. Their function is to be performed.

did i really type "some good movies are good?" wow... i need an editor.

mgs

09-07-2007, 09:28 PM

Jackson's LoTR Trilogy. Still haven't read the books all the way through. And I wouldn't say it was, better than, but animated, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was really well done though not as detailed as the book.

the goddamn batman

09-08-2007, 12:28 AM

I like the movie more, but I'm not sure that it's necessarily better than the book. It's scarier than the book, but the book of course has more depth and is more thrilling than scary.

The book goes much deeper into the characters, but the end of the book is RETARDED!!! Just like most King books.

Kubrick did away with Jack's character arc, preferring to make him a monster all the way to the end instead of King's choosing to have Jack come to his senses and be the story's martyr (something King LOVES). I think maybe the boiler metaphor in the book was a little too literal for Kubrick too.

King can say all he wants about Kubrick's movie, but I've seen that version of the Shining that King was a part of. ASS! That thing was such a pile of shit... I've been more scared of what's in the back of my fridge.

Oh, and the ending of that version? *Vomit* God. Time I'll never have back.

1_2_3[Kasady]

09-08-2007, 12:41 AM

Fight Club.

Far more cohesive, clever and well realized, Jim Uhls screenplay not only brought Palahniuk's thoroughly disconnected message to an engrossing and satisfactory focal point, but achieved this through a highly relatable style and commendably sufficient voice. He even went so far as to take disjointed phrases and remarks and combine them into large, now famous speeches and character exposition.

A truly commendable effort, and 1/4 of the reason why Fight Club is such a great fucking film. Unfortunately, for reasons unbeknownst to me, he hasn't dont much of anything since.

rick

09-08-2007, 01:36 AM

I thought that the film Silence of the Lambs was much better then the book, which came across to me as being a bit melodramatic.

And speaking of melodramatic, am I bad person because I found the movie The Ten Commandments far more enjoyable then the books of Exodus?

StoneGold

09-08-2007, 02:10 AM

BeastieRunner

09-08-2007, 05:08 AM

Jackson's LoTR Trilogy.

Dude, I totally agree. And I've read the books. Extended Edition Movies > the books. *Prepares to be flogged*

lonewolf23k

09-08-2007, 05:33 AM

Dude, I totally agree. And I've read the books. Extended Edition Movies > the books. *Prepares to be flogged*

I liked the books, but I have to agree that the movies told the story a little tighter then the books did. I believe it was mentionned in the Extended DVDs' special features that while Tolkien was a great linguist, his books lacked a theatrical style of storytelling.

Chiasm

09-08-2007, 05:45 AM

Servants of the Twilight by Dean Koontz

This was a low budget movie with no name actors yet somehow actually managed to be fairly good. The movie and book follow pretty closely to one another with one major difference that I'll get to. Since chances are many have never seen the movie or read the book its about a single mom raising her son. A wacko religious cult somehow decides that her son is the son of the devil and that he must be destroyed to save the world. With the help of a private investigator mom and son go on the run.

By the end of the book a few hints have been dropped that the son is in fact the son of the devil. The ending though seems to conclude he is not. In the movie however after the PI and mom have destroyed the cultists after them its made very clear that the kid is in fact the son of the devil when he kills the PI after he figures it out.

Deep_Sleeper

09-08-2007, 05:51 AM

I think this is the first time I've heard someone say anything good about Dean Koontz.

EDIT: Correction. Anything Dean Koontz related.

Chiasm

09-08-2007, 06:18 AM

I think this is the first time I've heard someone say anything good about Dean Koontz.

EDIT: Correction. Anything Dean Koontz related.

He is what he is. I've said this before about him but his characters are all pretty much the same book to book. You've got the incredible lead protaganist who is a great person and well liked. This character either already has met or will meet the love of their life and that love will be more than ordinary love. And there will be a special child (sometimes a dog) who is uncannily smart and who will be endangered a lot. But once you get past that he is pretty imaginative with his plots.

I had a lit teacher in college sum he and John Grisham up perfectly. They are that chocolate bar your craving. You know you shouldn't, you know there are better things out there for you, but you can't resist and it tastes oh so good while it lasts even if it is full of crap and other junk.

Deep_Sleeper

09-08-2007, 06:23 AM

Have you read Dragon Tears? I thought that was a cool book. No child or pets, if I remember correctly.

But when you were describing his characters, I immediately thought "Winter Moon". Read that book and that description of his craft matches that book to a T.

Reptisaurus!

09-08-2007, 01:58 PM

Oh yeah. The Shining's a good one. I liked the simplified, pared down plot, without, like, the giant magic tree monsters an' crap.

Other than that, I honestly can't think of a direct adaption of book to movie where I liked the movie better.

SPAfreak

09-08-2007, 02:26 PM

Oh yeah. The Shining's a good one. I liked the simplified, pared down plot, without, like, the giant magic tree monsters an' crap.

The topiary animals? I remember having a few bad dreams after reading that. The idea that things come alive and move to attack you when you aren't looking is such an intrinsic, childish fear that the scene worked. It certainly brought back a few bad nights that I had as a kid in unfamiliar surroundings.

Totoro Man

09-08-2007, 02:58 PM

Jurassic Park. In the book the characters are all two-dimensional stereotypes. It's only in the film that they become in any way relatable.

actually, just about ANY adaptation of that guys (Crichton sp?) novels would be an improvement. I find his writing style intolerably dull. I think I made it 5 or 10 pages into "the Lost World" (or whatever that Jurassic Park sequel got called) and gave up.

xnef1025

09-08-2007, 04:47 PM

I have to agree with LoTR. I love the movies. Getting through the book was a chore. I just can't manage more than a few pages of Tolkien's writing style without lapsing into a coma. The fact that Robert Jordan emulated Tolkien in the first half of Eye of the World explains why it took me three attempts over 4 years to finally get through that book as well.

Speaking of Jordan, if Wheel of Time ever gets made, the movies are sure to be better since we won't spend 40 pages of script describing the fabric of dresses and 80 pages on Aes Sedai spanking rituals.

Jared

09-08-2007, 05:29 PM

The book goes much deeper into the characters, but the end of the book is RETARDED!!! Just like most King books.

Though at least in the case of 'IT', I thought that the novel's psychic/cosmic struggle worked better than the anticlimax of the miniseries, which made destroying IT seem like a job that an especially hearty Orkin Man could have accomplished.

King can say all he wants about Kubrick's movie, but I've seen that version of the Shining that King was a part of. ASS! That thing was such a pile of shit... I've been more scared of what's in the back of my fridge.

Oh, and the ending of that version? *Vomit* God. Time I'll never have back.

I know exactly how you feel. Stephen Weber with a croquet mallet can't possibly compete against Jack Nicholson with an ax. And then there was that from-left-field redemptive ending, replete with an action movie one-liner.

"Gentlemen, I believe the party is over."
F**K YOU WEBER, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OVER BEFORE I SAT THROUGH SIX HOURS OF THIS CRAP! I realize King has sold more books than God, but if he really thinks that the TV version is a better horror story, he should go back to the drugs. I've got The Shining sitting on a bookshelf, if the miniseries was exceedingly faithful adaptation of it, especially with regards to the ending, it's just going to keep sitting there.

Scorpion13

09-08-2007, 11:35 PM

Johnny_Luck

09-08-2007, 11:57 PM

Murrocko

09-09-2007, 12:08 AM

I Personally don't know myself, but I constantly hear how Fight Club the movie was better than the book.

Scorpion13

09-09-2007, 12:15 AM

Storm of the Century is amazing and king wrote it as a screenplay.

Well sir, I hated Storm of the Century with a burning passion.

I mean, it really, really felt like it was a short story padded out into a 4 hour/400 page story.

Johnny_Luck

09-09-2007, 01:46 AM

I felt it was one of the most well developed character wise and acting wise creepy things shown on tv in history.

at the point it ended I was bummed from wanting it to get more time, I wanted more baddie, more townsfolks, I felt it was too short, not too long.

marshal99

09-09-2007, 03:46 AM

He is what he is. I've said this before about him but his characters are all pretty much the same book to book. You've got the incredible lead protaganist who is a great person and well liked. This character either already has met or will meet the love of their life and that love will be more than ordinary love. And there will be a special child (sometimes a dog) who is uncannily smart and who will be endangered a lot. But once you get past that he is pretty imaginative with his plots.

You're right. Dean Koontz characters in his novels does tends to share similiar traits and his novels generally always have a strong female character , either as supporting or lead. However , Dean Koontz isn't that bad , some of his older novels are very much readable and imaginative - strangers , watchers , phantoms , lightning etc.

However , the movie adaptations of his novels have been awful at best. Most of them are really bad.

the goddamn batman

09-09-2007, 04:34 AM

Ive never understood why people think the endings of Kings books are terrible.

Name one. Really. Be specific.

And as for the end of It, well, what did you expect? Them to kill it with thier bare hands like in the movie? That was what was terrible.

And yeah, as good as his books are, every single movie in which King has an active part is pretty terrible. Save for Creepshow, but thats because it was mostly Romero doing the directing. Romero and Savini is enough to cancel out any king of stupidity.

I'm really tired so elaboration isn't going to happen.

Uh, the Shining, which has been at least 5 years since I read it last, but I remember just hating the end with Jack in the Overlook. It simply had nothing on what Kubrick did with the film.

Geralds Game had a terrible ending. I'm not a big King fan to begin with, but I really liked that book. Until the end. Terrible. I don't really want to ruin it for anyone, so I won't go into it.

What I do like, is King's short stories. Those are good.

the goddamn batman

09-09-2007, 04:38 AM

I know exactly how you feel. Stephen Weber with a croquet mallet can't possibly compete against Jack Nicholson with an ax. And then there was that from-left-field redemptive ending, replete with an action movie one-liner.

"Gentlemen, I believe the party is over."
F**K YOU WEBER, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OVER BEFORE I SAT THROUGH SIX HOURS OF THIS CRAP! I realize King has sold more books than God, but if he really thinks that the TV version is a better horror story, he should go back to the drugs. I've got The Shining sitting on a bookshelf, if the miniseries was exceedingly faithful adaptation of it, especially with regards to the ending, it's just going to keep sitting there.

Stephen Weber was the least of the problems. The fact that the Overlook doesn't feel very big orr very grand is a BIG problem. Right off the bat. When Jack talks to the manager on the front lawn? That's got to be one of the worst scripted and acted scenes I've EVER seen. EVER.

The kid was ok, but again, after the film, what's the point.

The hedge animals? Fucking terrible. Just terrible.

The lighting? Softer than a bunny. Not scary. It's like the Hallmark version of the shining.

The make up? eeesh. I can buy a better mask at the store.

All the cliche doors closing by themselves? Please god, make it stop.

I can go on and on, but you get the idea. I'm hard pressed to think of a single thing they did right in that film.

marshal99

09-09-2007, 06:58 AM

Stephen Weber was the least of the problems. The fact that the Overlook doesn't feel very big orr very grand is a BIG problem. Right off the bat.

Considering the location of the mini series "The stanley hotel" was the actual location where King got his inspiration for the book from and on which the fictional overlook hotel was based on , i don't think how you can actually blame the hotel for not being good enough .

Also , the stanley hotel is famous for being haunted. You can't get better than that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqg1BdQLSB8

Tobias March

09-09-2007, 07:16 AM

I'll go with Children of Men. The movie is fast-paced, exciting and emotionally draining. The book...not so much.

jesus's son also. Which may be unfair, the book is only a collection of short stories, but the film gave real life to some of the sketches of addicts and lost souls. Amazing soundtrack aswell.

Ivan Isaacs

09-09-2007, 07:20 AM

Not the whole movie but the ending/showdown of Relic was WAY better than the showdown of the book.

Titan76

09-09-2007, 07:25 AM

V for Vendetta was way better as a movie than a comic book IMO.
:eek:
Don't mean to sound like a jerk but did you even read the book?

I would have to say I remember liking Mice and Men the movie more then the book. Don't ask me why because its been six years since I read the book and watch the movie.

The Mutt

09-09-2007, 07:56 AM

:eek:
Don't mean to sound like a jerk but did you even read the book?

I would have to say I remember liking Mice and Men the movie more then the book. Don't ask me why because its been six years since I read the book and watch the movie.
Of Mice and Men reads like a movie that didn't sell, got adapted for the stage, re-written as a screenplay, then adapted into a book or something. It's a brilliant story, but kind of a mess. I don't think I've seen a bad film version, Randy Quaid included.

SPAfreak

09-09-2007, 10:12 AM

Not the whole movie but the ending/showdown of Relic was WAY better than the showdown of the book.

The movie was a combination of two books, both of which were better than the movie for two reasons:

1) They actually had Pendergast in them.

2) They did not star slimy, sleazy Tom Sizemore.

Unfortunately they suffered from a distinct lack of Linda Hunt and the inclusion of some idiot reporter whose name I've blocked for the moment. That and the weird cult. That just didn't work for me.

HectorP

09-09-2007, 04:57 PM

Though at least in the case of 'IT', I thought that the novel's psychic/cosmic struggle worked better than the anticlimax of the miniseries, which made destroying IT seem a job that an especially hearty Orkin Man could have accomplished.

The way the miniseries ended, makes you think that Richie's suggestion of bringing an Uzi to the sewers was the best idea they ever had.

Scorpion13

09-09-2007, 05:05 PM

Considering the location of the mini series "The stanley hotel" was the actual location where King got his inspiration for the book from and on which the fictional overlook hotel was based on , i don't think how you can actually blame the hotel for not being good enough .

Also , the stanley hotel is famous for being haunted. You can't get better than that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqg1BdQLSB8

No, Im pretty sure you can. Just because its what King based the Overlook on, that doesnt mean it works at all in a movie. And it didnt. At all.

It looked way too homey and friendly to be really scary, especially in the hands of the hacks who are doing it for network tv.

Kubrick's Overlook is creepy, and worked far better. White, sterile in just about every part of it, and you really got a sense of isolation with it.