- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Movies that are better than the book it's based on?
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:06 pm to alajones
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:06 pm to alajones
quote:
Count of Monte Cristo- Same with above. The book as is just would not be a great movie. Very little action. There were some unbelievable sequences that would not have held up on a movie screen.
Gtfo.
1
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:08 pm to Bluefin
quote:
American Psycho
False
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:10 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
No Country for Old Men
Wrong
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:10 pm to Josh Fenderman
I've read a lot of books that were ultimately made into movies.
I've watched a lot of films that were adapted from books.
In virtually every case, the book is a more expansive, intellectually rewarding piece - and this is not necessarily a slam against filmmakers - the eyes and ears are inherently a weaker canvas, than the human brain, where a book's words have to be crafted by the reader himself.
Having said that - I have come across wonderful adaptations.
LOTR - Of course it took a trilogy of films. The book is very detailed and if you like that (I do) you will probably balk at suggestions the movies are as good or better. I think they're different experiences, but Peter Jackson's vision of LOTR is about as good as possible with the subject matter.
The Firm - A situation where the enivornment is very much the same, but the stories diverge wildly in the third act. Again, a situation where I can find them different enough to treat as wholly separate experiences - I actually prefer the ending in the book, but the film version was excellent in capturing the paranoia and images of the book.
The Hunt for Red October - although the remaining film versions of Clancy's popular novels left a lot to be desired (Patriot games was merely okay. The rest? Pass.), the film version of Hunt for Red October, for all its flaws, was excellent.
Now I just gave 3 examples that don't precisely meet the OP's question - those were 3, relatively high profile, film adaptations of popular novels, that I thought were roughly on par with the books, but not exceeding them.
The one I think is superior, and not by a slight margin, is "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" - which most of you know better as Bladerunner, the 1982 film by Ridley Scott, starring Harrison Ford. The stories varied so wildly that someone experienced with only 1 version would scarcely recognize the other. I merely like "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" - Bladerunner is my favorite film.
I've watched a lot of films that were adapted from books.
In virtually every case, the book is a more expansive, intellectually rewarding piece - and this is not necessarily a slam against filmmakers - the eyes and ears are inherently a weaker canvas, than the human brain, where a book's words have to be crafted by the reader himself.
Having said that - I have come across wonderful adaptations.
LOTR - Of course it took a trilogy of films. The book is very detailed and if you like that (I do) you will probably balk at suggestions the movies are as good or better. I think they're different experiences, but Peter Jackson's vision of LOTR is about as good as possible with the subject matter.
The Firm - A situation where the enivornment is very much the same, but the stories diverge wildly in the third act. Again, a situation where I can find them different enough to treat as wholly separate experiences - I actually prefer the ending in the book, but the film version was excellent in capturing the paranoia and images of the book.
The Hunt for Red October - although the remaining film versions of Clancy's popular novels left a lot to be desired (Patriot games was merely okay. The rest? Pass.), the film version of Hunt for Red October, for all its flaws, was excellent.
Now I just gave 3 examples that don't precisely meet the OP's question - those were 3, relatively high profile, film adaptations of popular novels, that I thought were roughly on par with the books, but not exceeding them.
The one I think is superior, and not by a slight margin, is "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" - which most of you know better as Bladerunner, the 1982 film by Ridley Scott, starring Harrison Ford. The stories varied so wildly that someone experienced with only 1 version would scarcely recognize the other. I merely like "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" - Bladerunner is my favorite film.
This post was edited on 6/19/13 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:14 pm to Ace Midnight
The Man Who Would Be King was an excellent short story by Kipling but the movies stunning visuals and ace casting, (Caine, Connery, Kingsley), really take it to another level.
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:24 pm to Josh Fenderman
quote:
I was wondering about this, I've never read the book though.
The movie is almost a word for word reproduction of the book, right down to the dialogue. The only real difference is the ending, and even then, the book basically just has an extra scene that the movie doesn't.
I loved the book. I also loved the movie. The edition I have has an awesome foreword written by the author, long after the movie was released. Its worth reading by itself.
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:27 pm to elprez00
Wizard of Oz
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:27 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
The Hunt for Red October - although the remaining film versions of Clancy's popular novels left a lot to be desired (Patriot games was merely okay. The rest? Pass.), the film version of Hunt for Red October, for all its flaws, was excellent.
One of my favorite books, and movies. All the plot changes made in the movie I have no issue with. It would have been hard to get everything from the book into the movie logistically, since the Navy participated, and would have made the movie 4 hours long.
And: Sean Connery's Scottish Russian accent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Costner's American English accent in Robin Hood.
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:33 pm to rondo
Rondo-I didn't read the book.... 
I must confess....
I must confess....
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:34 pm to Ace Midnight
Nice post. I need to read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:43 pm to Josh Fenderman
The Princes Bride
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:44 pm to Josh Fenderman
Lord of the Rings for me.
I liked the books but the movies are much better in my opinion
I liked the books but the movies are much better in my opinion
Posted on 6/19/13 at 12:59 pm to rondo
quote:
False
True. Christian Bale plays Patrick Bateman better than Patrick Bateman plays Patrick Bateman.
Posted on 6/19/13 at 1:19 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
I agree with this, Tom Bombadil is perhaps my least favorite literary character ever
Tom is one of the only characters in LOTR that the one ring has zero affect on. I hated that Jackson left him out of the Fellowship of the Ring movie.
Posted on 6/19/13 at 1:33 pm to Josh Fenderman
Great Gatsby
Posted on 6/19/13 at 1:44 pm to The_Joker
quote:
Go die. Starship Troopers the movie isn't even in the same universe as the book. The movie was garbage.
Posted on 6/19/13 at 1:45 pm to Lsupimp
The movie almost follows the book word for word....the book has one chapter the movie doesn't address though.
Posted on 6/19/13 at 1:57 pm to rondo
Okay, admittedly, I changed the OPs parameters a bit. I was really listing books that would not have made very good movies if left as/is. I realize that TCoMC and CoN will still be read 100 years from now but no one will remember the movies.
I still stand by my statements of both books though. Neither would have made good movies without a lot of help from a director.
I still stand by my statements of both books though. Neither would have made good movies without a lot of help from a director.
This post was edited on 6/19/13 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 6/19/13 at 2:06 pm to TygerTyger
Came here to post Stand by Me. One of my favorite coming of age movies ever.
Posted on 6/19/13 at 2:10 pm to BOSCEAUX
There seems to be some sort of trend here involving Stephen King. Were any of his books better than the movies? (And some of the movies have been pretty bad.)
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News