Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book?

Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

dcnovice -> Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/8/2012 7:38:59 PM)
We've all heard, and perhaps said, it: "Oh, the book was so much better than the movie!" But are there times when filmmakers actually tell an author's story better than s/he did? I can think of three examples: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: My least favorite of my beloved Harry Potter books, it seemed clunky and talky--until Alfonso Cuarón worked his magic on it. The Joy-Luck Club: I enjoyed the book, to be sure, but it had a certain reserve that the movie broke through, to the point that I cried--a rarity for me. Fried Green Tomatoes: It's heresy in my tribe to ay this, but I found the movie more engaging, and I confess I liked the addition of the Bates-Tandy subplot. Any others come to mind?

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/8/2012 8:10:19 PM)
A good question! So far, no...I am such a text purist!

kdsub -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/8/2012 8:14:25 PM)
I'm sure most will not agree with me but I found the movie version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo much easier to follow and I enjoyed it more than the book. Butch

DarkSteven -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/8/2012 8:23:54 PM)
The Wrong Box was an awful book and a wonderful movie.

smartsub10 -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/8/2012 8:29:13 PM)
Shawshank Redemption. Although, Shawshank Redemption was a novella in a collection of short stories by Stephen King so I don't know if that counts. [;)]

SpaceSpank -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/8/2012 10:17:38 PM)
I can't ever recall a movie I liked more than a book. But I've certainly liked them both equally for different reasons.

Kana -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/8/2012 10:20:21 PM)
No Country for Old men

Kana -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/8/2012 10:51:21 PM)
And (Oh, this is gonna stir some shit) Blade Runner Silence of the Lambs too

Winterapple -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/8/2012 10:57:08 PM)
The first that comes to mind is The Godfather which I think is a much better film than it is a book. I'd agree with Silence of the Lambs to.

Kana -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/9/2012 12:02:54 AM)
More The Princess Bride (I knew I was forgetting a biggie!) Full Metal Jacket (Kubrick was the Master at this. Dr Strangelove kills the book it's based on. So does A Clockwork Orange. And so do arguably The Shining and 2001) One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest Jaws Minority Report MAS*H Dances with Wolves And the latest biggie There Will Be Blood

Winterapple -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/9/2012 1:29:50 AM)
I agree with those though I'm indifferent to Cuckoos Nest be it as a book, play or movie. Kesey hates the movie version of Cuckoo and King doesn't like Kubrick's Shining either.

WomanlyWiles -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/9/2012 4:30:49 AM)
I will agree with The Princess Bride and Blade Runner, and add American Psycho. I love the book, but the film has Christian Bale with no shirt on, which is pretty much all I'm hoping for in a Christian Bale Movie.

Endivius -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/9/2012 5:12:00 AM)
Shawshank, it's got mutha fukin morgan freeman in it. Clockwork orange, great pick I agree. The lord of the rings the fellowship of the ring, it was almost spot on with the book, and basically brought the story to life. The book rox, so does the movie. The follow ups were nice, but the books were better. Nosferatu, amazing for it's time. Jaws, the music is what made that movie. It's true. And because I'm awesome, enjoy : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvX6LkbiS-U

Kana -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/9/2012 7:16:29 AM)
Ya know, I almost added a disclaimer threatening the life and the hide of anyone fool enough to mention any of the LOTR trilogy., The movies are trite crap (With good battle scenes and special effects) while the books are one of the great workds of English Lit. It's like saying that you preferred Leo's Romeo and Juliet to the play-which is drivel

Endivius -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/9/2012 7:22:09 AM)
I thought the first one was great. Loved it, it was like seeing the pages come to life. I have read the books several times over the years, always enjoyed the way he illustrated the tension the characters felt. Now the second two films, I would agree with you. Wholeheartedly in fact, the first however, I enjoyed immensely.

Kana -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/9/2012 7:48:07 AM)
Sorry I totally disagree My main beef is that Jackson misses the characterization completely in so many cases. He turns Gimli into a sideshow slapstick farce, missed the boat completely on Legelos and that's just for starters. He places his feet wrong in the first movie setting the stage for failures which will only grow larger and more glaring as the movies progress. Then there's his decision to use cheesy special effects instead of letting great actors act in the critical scenes where Galadriel refuses the ring (After watching that shit-I was toast for any of the rest of the movies-it's one incredible piece of writing and Jackson just shanks the scene. Kills it deader than dead) and Gandalf reviving Theoden. Yeah-that was beyond awful. Not to mention his re engineering of the plot and his decision to add elements. Like seriously Dude, you are dealing with holy shit-The Fantasy Series-and in your ego and arrogance (Exemplified and continued in his tragic decision to split The Hobbit in three) you are gonna add your own scenes? In a book that is already too long and is going to have important and terrific scenes cut? And you're adding shit? Put down the crack pipe Son, come back with us to reality. And often the reason for doing so is to bow to modern political whiny sensitivities (I'm referring in specific to Jackson's decision to expand on Arwen's actions and character, kowtowing to feminists who somehow claim that LOTR doesn't have strong female characters (Did they read the books? Did they meet Galadriel, Eowyn? WTH?) as well as capitalize on Liv Tylers fame and figure-which is simply reprehensible.) Really. WTF? I find the movies in many ways offensively bad and wish a more sensitive and subtle director (As opposed to a Lucas acolyte)had taken a crack at em.

GreedyTop -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/9/2012 7:51:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpaceSpank I can't ever recall a movie I liked more than a book. But I've certainly liked them both equally for different reasons. This.

Kana -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/9/2012 8:04:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop quote: ORIGINAL: SpaceSpank I can't ever recall a movie I liked more than a book. But I've certainly liked them both equally for different reasons. This. Try reading Trainspotting. You'll soon be whistling a different tune. The movie is tough enough to understand, what with deciphering all those bloody Scots accents, but the damn book is written entirely in dialect-you'll be spitting out "Oy's" annd "foine" and Scottish sayings for weeks after. And it makes my head hurt trying to translate. Oh fuck it does.

JanahX -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/9/2012 8:05:43 AM)
I liked "The Shining" - (the original w/Jack Nicholson & Shelly Duvall) better than the book. Interesting tid bit about the filming of the Shining: (taken from Wiki) - Nicholson states in the documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures that Kubrick was great to work with but that he was "a different director" with Duvall. Due to Kubrick's highly methodical nature, principal photography took a year to complete. Perhaps the most notorious example of this was Kubrick's insistence that she and Nicholson perform 127 takes of the baseball bat scene, which broke a world record for the most retakes of a single movie scene with spoken dialogue. Kubrick and Duvall had frequent arguments although Duvall later said she learned more from working with Kubrick on The Shining than she did on all her previous films. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I agree with Kana about LOTR - The books are epic. I think that Jackson did a great job interpreting it to film, but the books are written so well that you cant really compare. Gone with the Wind - the book is outstanding & much more detailed, and the writing is supurb. I can honestly say its one of the only books where I was seriously bummed when I finished reading it. I just wanted it to go on and on and on and on. the movie - Gone with the Wind - epic.

SpaceSpank -> RE: Ever Like the Movie Better Than the Book? (9/9/2012 8:29:54 AM)
I liked the lotr trilogy a lot. And loved the books. But they are entirely different beasts. The movies are primarily action pieces, they emphasize different parts of the story. They are a fun romp through middle earth with fun characters and great special effects. They could never be the books because they can't emphasize the same aspects. People take time with books, they want to savor the atmosphere and the characters. They can spend 200 pages on two people sitting in a room talking if they like... So long as it is done well, people will enjoy it. If you tried to place that in the middle of a movie it would work. A movie needs to be more dynamic and engaging unless you want it to be a niche film. And the lotr trilogy was certainly not meant to be niche. The we're all big budget blockbusters. So I liked them, but differently from the books. I wish they would have been a bit closer to the source, but overall I thought they were a good "easy to consume" presentation of the books that you can just sit back and enjoy.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125