• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

the book is always better than the movie...

ShAdEs0fGrAy said:
Stephen King's books turned to movies are good, but never as good as the books.
Click to expand...

The Langoleirs (spelling?) was probably the worst made for TV movie EVER. Usually his his made for TV movies are bad, but that one might take the cake.

As for the movie Christine, they absolutly ruined it. In the book the car has a personality and a mind of it's own, but in the movie they just made the kid go crazy! They entirely changed the ending, placing him in the car when the finale occurs instead of letting the car drive its self, which was what made the book so great!

I think the absolute epitimy of a great book to horrible movie transition is Starship Troopers. Heinlien MUST BE rolling in his grave.

Contact was a great movie, and standing alone from the book, is one of my favorites. I thoroughly enjoy the book though, as the movie left out her boyfriend and important character Der'Heer. (der'heer = they're here - what a fantastic character name!, and they left him out!) The reason being was they felt it would be more interesting and opening to have her and Palmer fall in love, since they were opposite ends of the spectrum when it came to religion and science.
 
Blade Runner

Blade Runner was based loosely (kind of)on a book by Phillip K. Dick called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" , and the title taken from a William Burroughs novel.

I really can't say either was 'better' than the other, though the book held much more content that the movie, but when is this not true?

Has anyone here read the book? If you haven't, I highly recommend you do, it's a very good book, with alot of elements that can't really be replicated in a movie, though the movie was phenomenal as well.

C~
 
The Rules of Attraction is a hard book to follow if you haven't seen the movie. It jumps around too much, and unless you know what you're looking for (or how to read it), you won't get much enjoyment out of it. However, the movie is one of my favorites:) Brett Easton Ellis is crazy.
 
Yggdrasil said:


I think the absolute epitimy of a great book to horrible movie transition is Starship Troopers. Heinlien MUST BE rolling in his grave.
Click to expand...

I agree the book was amazing, and had almost nothing in common to the movie except in a few select areas. Like many people, i'd seen the movie 1st then read the book. is't this how alot of books get huge exposure? (LOTR, etc).

But as far as the worst adaptation for a book, i'd have to say Queen of the Damned by Anne Rice. I absolutely loved that book and i'd read it before the movie came out. I was appalled by the movie to say the least.
 
i had grown up being a huge heinlein fan, and as soon as i saw the trailer for starship troopers i knew it was going to suck.

where was the powered attack armor?

and michael ironsides, for chrissakes.
 
^ perhaps a case of "inspired by" rather than "based on" or "an adaptation of"?

alasdair
 
probably, but it was the difference between a great story and a generic sci-fi action crudfest.
 
michael said:
i had grown up being a huge heinlein fan, and as soon as i saw the trailer for starship troopers i knew it was going to suck.

where was the powered attack armor?
Click to expand...

No shit, they excluded almost everything from the book that made it different and impressive. The suits they wore were an enormous part of the story, and by story I mean what the movie looked at and decided to throw away. I heard that the director didn't even finish the book! (although how can that possibly be true) The book was not about fighting aliens, it was about the personal development and change of Johnny Ricco, and the events he went through in preperation. The movie scrapped almost the entire book and focused on fighting and hollywood cliche's. What an atrocious mess.
 
SoN_of_SaMurAi said:
I think that every Steven King movie has been destroyed by hack actors, shitty dialogue and really bad direction. The only exception to this being Jack Nicholson in The Shining.
Click to expand...

Misery, Shawshank and The Green Mile were all sucessful adaptations... but still not as good as the books.
 
Green Mile was so-so, but Misery was an exceptional movie. Most of that had to do with the acting of Kathy Bates, unfortunately.

Anyone remember Johnny Mnemonic? I wanted to kill Gibson for letting Kenau play the lead in that hacked-apart screenplay based on a short story. I mean, a short story, how the fuck do you mangle THAT when interpreting for film? Ugh.
 
Yggdrasil said:
The Langoleirs (spelling?) was probably the worst made for TV movie EVER. Usually his his made for TV movies are bad, but that one might take the cake.

Click to expand...

I don't know, I'm quite partial to Rose Red and Storm of the Century... The tv version of The Shining was pretty good too... The Stand left something to be desired but wasn't too bad overall...
 
lostpunk5545 said:
I don't know, I'm quite partial to Rose Red and Storm of the Century... The tv version of The Shining was pretty good too... The Stand left something to be desired but wasn't too bad overall...
Click to expand...

I didn't like Rose Red but Storm was excellent. Of course they were written specifically for the screen.

The Dead Zone is another classic but still not as good as the book. One thing about Cronenberg is that he has a knack for filming unfilmable books (okay, TDZ was very filmable). I don't know if Spider and Crash are better books. I didn't like Crash, but loved Spider.
 
as people have said, books are always better because there is much more room for interpretation.. your interpretation is always going to feel more confortable than the directors.

- one book->film adaptation that i found to be really good was 'A Time To Kill'.. what a movie =) The casting was incredible, all of the actors did a awesome job and the emotion in this movie blew me away.. credit to the author (forgotten name).
 
A Time to Kill was an ecellent book and movie. The author is John Grisham & many ofhis books have translated fairly well into movies. Like The Client, The Firm & Pelican Brief (the books were still better).

One of my favorite book and movie would have to be Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
I am interested to see how Timeline the movie ends up. That was a good book.
 
Stephen King's Dreamcatcher was a great book and highly detailed. The movie would have been very hard to understand completely if you didn't read the book. They left out a lot of things.

Although some of the scenes and characters are exactly how I pictured it.

The ending in the book was SO much better. The ending in the movie sucked I thought.
 
^ I can't remember the ending to the movie of Dreamcatcher because I was extremely enebriated when I watched it but I do slightly remember bitching about it for like 2 hours so it must have been crap compared to the book...

I sort of remember enjoying most of the rest of the movie... Fucking Dudley is supposed to be down syndrome though... That kid in the movie didn't even slightly look down sydrome...
 
Stephen King's Dreamcatcher was a great book and highly detailed. The movie would have been very hard to understand completely if you didn't read the book. They left out a lot of things.
Click to expand...
i noticed that too. many of my friends who i saw the movie with were lost whereas i knew what was going on because of the book.

and while its great to discuss good books making good movies, i thought the point of this thread was to discuss movies that were better than their written counterpart?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top