Films adaptions better than the book - Page 6

Rizla · 02-18-2012, 11:04 PM

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a good example. Definitely better than the book IMO.

Fight Club? Interesting...but I think they are just very different. The chapter in the book about what he put in the food when he worked as a waiter...well, it's not in the film.

LOTR? OMG, sacrilege! What!

I liked the first film very much, but after that they went down hard. To compare to the book? Ludicrous! They should have made six separate movies faithfully mapped to the original six books. All that story-line flipping made me dizzy.

BTW you need to read the Silmarillion and the Lost Tales to appreciate the poetry and just who Gilgalad was and why you should care

Mike Hobart · 02-19-2012, 10:40 AM

Film better than the book? Only one that comes to mind is The Graduate. I complained how dull it was to a friend [science fiction writer A. Bertram Chandler] and he just puffed on his pipe and said in his experience bad novels often made good movies and vice versa!

On consideration, I do remember that the movie PBS made of Ursula K. LeGuin's The Lathe of Heaven was slightly different to the novel but the differences were improvements for once.

Fozzybear · 02-19-2012, 01:20 PM

The Shawshank Redemption I thought worked much better as a film, though I did enjoy the book immensely and would rather like to read it again some time.

Lord of the Rings is a tricky one - the films (...has to be the extended editions!) are superb, though a touch cheesy in some places. I think the books are better but definitely lean towards a bit too much poetry (which I also tend to skim through after reading some of it) and exposition - you can really tell that Tolkien was an English professor! The books give much more of an impression of scale of the lands and the task at hand than the films do but the films are excellent and keep the important aspects of the story intact - trying to fit the sheer scope of the books into three films must have been a herculean task. I've watched the extra material on the extended editions (in all there are 9 dvds of documentaries on the blu-ray set!!) and the amount of work and attention to detail they put into the films is quite astonishing - they had people working for years making chainmail!

Oh, and I saw the Fellowship of the Ring before I'd read the books - I certainly prefer the flow of the first book, even though I'm not actually terribly keen on Tom Bombadil.

I agree about High Fidelity too, I saw the film and thought it was fantastic but the book just left me cold. I've read another of his books and quite liked it but that one just didn't work as well as the film did for me.

elemenoP · 02-19-2012, 01:33 PM

I have to disagree on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I read the book three times, I loved it so much, and then saw the movie many years later. It is a very good movie, certainly Nicholson is phenomenal. I appreciate that the movie stands on its own as a great movie. But the book is still one of my very favorite books, with a different message from the movie.

Which leads me to a theory. For those who said the movie was better than the book, which did you see/read first, the book or the movie? I'm thinking you can only like the movie best if you saw the movie first. Agree, disagree?

eP

hard-boiled pat · 02-19-2012, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xg4bx

this might be controversial but i've gotta say Lord of the Rings. i thought the books were painfully dull and the movies did a nice job of cutting to the chase.

agree 100%... also 'get shorty' by elmore leonard.

khalleron · 02-19-2012, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elemenoP

I have to disagree on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I read the book three times, I loved it so much, and then saw the movie many years later. It is a very good movie, certainly Nicholson is phenomenal. I appreciate that the movie stands on its own as a great movie. But the book is still one of my very favorite books, with a different message from the movie.

Which leads me to a theory. For those who said the movie was better than the book, which did you see/read first, the book or the movie? I'm thinking you can only like the movie best if you saw the movie first. Agree, disagree?

eP

Nope. I had read 'The Black Stallion' probably a dozen times as a kid years before I saw the movie. I still think the movie is far, far superior.

I think whichever you experience first might prejudice you a bit, but if your judgment is still intact, you ought to be able to judge each on its own merits.

On the other hand, I've yet to see a film version of 'Little Women' that even began to do the book justice, although the TV version starring Susan Dey came by far the closest.

LOTR is kind of a Rorschach test - some people LOVE the books, some are completely bored by them. Some of the same people who dislike the books might love the movies, some who love the books might hate the movies (although I've met very few of the latter category). Me, I think the movies are awe-inspiring achievements of film, but I still think the book was better because of the level of detail and because Tolkien's philosophy is clearer. Tolkien's writing is quite Victorian in tone - doesn't bother me because I read of lot of Victorian lit anyway, but for those with more 'modern' tastes I can see where they might find it draggy. But then I find much of modern lit *too* stripped down. When there's nothing left but plot, then there's nothing left worth reading, IMHO.

spindlegirl · 02-19-2012, 04:36 PM

As far as LOTR is concerned. I think the movie and the film are both brilliant, but clearly different.
There are parts of the novel that I couldn't stand, and parts of the movie that I thought were sappy and overdone.

BenG · 02-19-2012, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Hobart

On consideration, I do remember that the movie PBS made of Ursula K. LeGuin's The Lathe of Heaven was slightly different to the novel but the differences were improvements for once.

But the A&E remake with James Caan and Lukas Haas was not only bad but, though the plot was similar,the point the movie seemed to be making was the complete opposite of what the book was all about.

altworld · 02-19-2012, 05:23 PM

Kick Ass the movie was much more fun and joyful tribute to over-the-top Superheroics and unashamed comic book violence that I felt the actually comic was. The comic book was actually fairly depressing and ended on a low note.

hard-boiled pat · 02-19-2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elemenoP

I have to disagree on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I read the book three times, I loved it so much, and then saw the movie many years later. It is a very good movie, certainly Nicholson is phenomenal. I appreciate that the movie stands on its own as a great movie. But the book is still one of my very favorite books, with a different message from the movie.

Which leads me to a theory. For those who said the movie was better than the book, which did you see/read first, the book or the movie? I'm thinking you can only like the movie best if you saw the movie first. Agree, disagree?

eP

ive never watched the shining movie because i loved the shining book so much.

closest i came was watching a spoof of it on a simpsons halloween special.

heySkippy · 02-19-2012, 07:39 PM

I was disappointed by The Shining (the movie) at the time. I was a big fan of the book and didn't think the movie measured up.

If you want a King book that was better as a movie, I think Carrie (original, haven't seen the remake) is a better example.

hard-boiled pat · 02-19-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heySkippy

I was disappointed by The Shining (the movie) at the time. I was a big fan of the book and didn't think the movie measured up.

If you want a King book that was better as a movie, I think Carrie (original, haven't seen the remake) is a better example.

i agree, also pet semetary was a good adaptation in my opinion.

Fozzybear · 02-20-2012, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heySkippy

I was disappointed by The Shining (the movie) at the time. I was a big fan of the book and didn't think the movie measured up.

If you want a King book that was better as a movie, I think Carrie (original, haven't seen the remake) is a better example.

I agree about the Shining. I really enjoyed the book but the film I thought was pretty poor, though it seems to be held up in some circles as a great work. I'd forgotten about the Simpsons version, that was a good one. Ach! He's got the Shinning!

I remember reading a movie novelization once, I think it was Terminator 2 (!), and the only thing I can remember is that every time the author wanted to add a dramatic emphasis it involved something 'which missed him by inches!' - it was awful!

Sil_liS · 02-20-2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elemenoP

Which leads me to a theory. For those who said the movie was better than the book, which did you see/read first, the book or the movie? I'm thinking you can only like the movie best if you saw the movie first. Agree, disagree?

I've always liked the book better independent of what I've seen/read first. But you could make a poll.

markbot · 02-20-2012, 09:45 AM

Movies were better:
Children of Men
Breakfast at Tiffany's (close one, could be because I saw the movie first)
Fight Club (close one, could be because I saw the movie first)

02-19-2012, 01:20 PM	#78
Fozzybear Enthusiast Posts: 48 Karma: 45968 Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: UK Device: Kindle Keyboard 3G	The Shawshank Redemption I thought worked much better as a film, though I did enjoy the book immensely and would rather like to read it again some time. Lord of the Rings is a tricky one - the films (...has to be the extended editions!) are superb, though a touch cheesy in some places. I think the books are better but definitely lean towards a bit too much poetry (which I also tend to skim through after reading some of it) and exposition - you can really tell that Tolkien was an English professor! The books give much more of an impression of scale of the lands and the task at hand than the films do but the films are excellent and keep the important aspects of the story intact - trying to fit the sheer scope of the books into three films must have been a herculean task. I've watched the extra material on the extended editions (in all there are 9 dvds of documentaries on the blu-ray set!!) and the amount of work and attention to detail they put into the films is quite astonishing - they had people working for years making chainmail! Oh, and I saw the Fellowship of the Ring before I'd read the books - I certainly prefer the flow of the first book, even though I'm not actually terribly keen on Tom Bombadil. I agree about High Fidelity too, I saw the film and thought it was fantastic but the book just left me cold. I've read another of his books and quite liked it but that one just didn't work as well as the film did for me. Last edited by Fozzybear; 02-19-2012 at 01:24 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best films of 2011 so far	markbot	Lounge	34	12-26-2011 07:00 PM
Twitch Films	scifiguy51	Recipes	2	09-15-2011 08:54 AM
What are some of the better book to film adaptions out there?	happy_terd	Lounge	45	03-01-2010 09:53 AM
Kevin Kelly's "True Films" 3.0 free e-book download	TadW	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	2	01-15-2008 06:58 AM
Is anybody into asian films?	harajukuchic	Lounge	7	03-29-2005 04:43 PM

02-18-2012, 11:04 PM	#76
Rizla Member Retired Posts: 3,183 Karma: 11721895 Join Date: Nov 2010 Device: Nook STR (rooted) & Sony T2	One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a good example. Definitely better than the book IMO. Fight Club? Interesting...but I think they are just very different. The chapter in the book about what he put in the food when he worked as a waiter...well, it's not in the film. LOTR? OMG, sacrilege! What! I liked the first film very much, but after that they went down hard. To compare to the book? Ludicrous! They should have made six separate movies faithfully mapped to the original six books. All that story-line flipping made me dizzy. BTW you need to read the Silmarillion and the Lost Tales to appreciate the poetry and just who Gilgalad was and why you should care

02-19-2012, 10:40 AM	#77
Mike Hobart Enthusiast Posts: 41 Karma: 640318 Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Australia Device: Kindle Paperwhite	Film better than the book? Only one that comes to mind is The Graduate. I complained how dull it was to a friend [science fiction writer A. Bertram Chandler] and he just puffed on his pipe and said in his experience bad novels often made good movies and vice versa! On consideration, I do remember that the movie PBS made of Ursula K. LeGuin's The Lathe of Heaven was slightly different to the novel but the differences were improvements for once.

02-19-2012, 01:33 PM	#79
elemenoP Wizard Posts: 1,717 Karma: 3790058 Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: NYC Device: Kindle Paperwhite, Sony 650	I have to disagree on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I read the book three times, I loved it so much, and then saw the movie many years later. It is a very good movie, certainly Nicholson is phenomenal. I appreciate that the movie stands on its own as a great movie. But the book is still one of my very favorite books, with a different message from the movie. Which leads me to a theory. For those who said the movie was better than the book, which did you see/read first, the book or the movie? I'm thinking you can only like the movie best if you saw the movie first. Agree, disagree? eP

02-19-2012, 04:36 PM	#82
spindlegirl Wizard Posts: 1,594 Karma: 21245891 Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Canada Device: Kobo Libra h20, Paperwhite 2017, Phone & Tablet w Moonreader	As far as LOTR is concerned. I think the movie and the film are both brilliant, but clearly different. There are parts of the novel that I couldn't stand, and parts of the movie that I thought were sappy and overdone.

02-19-2012, 05:23 PM	#84
altworld Evangelist Posts: 495 Karma: 746472 Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Deep in Maryland Device: Android G1	Kick Ass the movie was much more fun and joyful tribute to over-the-top Superheroics and unashamed comic book violence that I felt the actually comic was. The comic book was actually fairly depressing and ended on a low note.

02-19-2012, 07:39 PM	#86
heySkippy Groupie Posts: 182 Karma: 1316076 Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Florida Device: iPad	I was disappointed by The Shining (the movie) at the time. I was a big fan of the book and didn't think the movie measured up. If you want a King book that was better as a movie, I think Carrie (original, haven't seen the remake) is a better example.

02-20-2012, 09:45 AM	#90
markbot Guru Posts: 612 Karma: 7511929 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: New York, NY Device: Amazon Kindle Paperwhite 2	Movies were better: Children of Men Breakfast at Tiffany's (close one, could be because I saw the movie first) Fight Club (close one, could be because I saw the movie first)