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



    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...

The Princess Bride.

The beauty of the film (besides it's clever comedy and veritably endless list of quoteables) is that it wraps up so nicely - a flawless ending, one might say. True, real life is not often so kind but that is one of the reasons it's called a "fantasy" film.

The book was nowhere near as utopian in its ending. We are never told if our farmboy/dread pirate Roberts "Westley" ends up making his escape with Princess Buttercup, and the author almost toys with the reader suggesting that they may even be caught by prince Humperdink's men.

The actors poured life into what were otherwise rather two dimentional characters - Mandy Patinkin's "Inigo Montoya" being the perfect example of this with Andre the Giant's "Fezzik" also deserving honorable mention.

SG
 
Lord of the Rings is a reader's book. I don't really think of it as three different books. Its something that'd you would take a good deal of time to read. But would read rather quickly. The movies pale in comparison (I'm a purist in this case, dont mess with Tolkien). They're done well.

Bridges of Madison County. I never read the book but Eastwood and Streep are really good. Reliable sources say the book is terrible.

I think Blade Runner the film is much better than the book. Its the type of film and book where you can't compare them. Blade Runner the film is this cool jazz cyberpunk detective story (with thoughts on what it is to be human in there). The book is somewhere between glum satire (the goat dying...no spoilers...just if you read it you'll know) and a bit darker. A lot of it is about petty greed.
 
Clockwork Orange - the movie had a completely different interpretation from the book. Both are brilliant, but if i had to chose, i'd say the movie by a nose.

Trainspotting - once again, different interpretations, once again, the movie by a nose.

The movie versions of both were so enhanced with visuals, colour, lighting etc that it made for a completely different experience to reading.

But then again, if ya want a good reading experience, there's always your good old imagination...:D
 
Sebastians_ghost said:
The Princess Bride.
Click to expand...

yup thats what i was gonna say! i did see the movie first, and the book was still an interesting read but the movie is SO much better.

i think of movies based on books as an artists interpretation of the piece not the movie OF the book. of course most of the time their interpretations still SUCK but the movie is never gonna please everyone's picture of how it should be.
 
As for LOTR, I read the Fellowship a long time ago, then tried to read the two other books countless times, but just couldn't get into them, I got as far as maybe two chapters but I just got bored. But last summer, when I had watched all three movies, I finally made another attempt at reading the trilogy, and it was a lot easier!

In the case of LOTR though, I think it's difficult to say whether the movie was better than the books or vice versa, because both are brilliant in their own way. If I had to choose, I prefer the movies to the books, but that's just a personal preference.

I guess a lot of it also depends on whether you're a "book person" or a "movie person".
 
I'd say book and movie versions of High Fidelity are pretty equal. The whole "list" thing works better in the book, but the actors portray the characters in the movie to a fucking T, IMO. Aside from the fact that some scenes are fleshed out more in the book and the fact the book takes place in London where the movie takes place in Chicago both are equally good.

Besides, I have a soft spot for the movie because they have scenes from some of my favorite places in the city, El inconsistencies aside. :D
 
having read rex picketts novel sideways before seeing the movie , i would have to say, as great as the movie is, the novel is simply on another level from the movie its THAT much better.;)
 
Cujo. Danny Pintauro (sp?) did an excellent job. I read the novel in fourth grade. Not on the school's list. I was a Steven King fan then.
 
FuncrusherPlus said:
The first Lotr movie did not do justice. They left out Tom Bombadil!!
Click to expand...

Fucking A! I missed that nut. And the Beornings.

I LOVED the LOTR books (plus the Hobbit), and while I also really liked the movies the books will always be superior in my mind. Same with any Stephen King work (his style does NOT lend itself well to adaptation because of the way he uses internal monologue to really flesh out the characters).
 
asmodeus256 said:
Fight Club the movie was better than Fight Club the book, imho. The book was just a little too slow, whereas the movie was tight-knit and immaculate.

American Psycho the movie was better then American Psycho the book. Well, it was easier. Because the book is steeped with details. And I mean every detail, of every possible thing. Although the "killing" scenes in the movie have nothing on the "killing" scenes in the book. They were so violent and insane...

A Clockwork Orange the book was as good as A Clockwork Orange the movie. Yup, they were about the same. Both really good.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of these. I'd add that Trainspotting was better as well (although the book is great).
 
Trainspotting was easier to follow as a movie for those of us who are unaccustomed to the Scottish dialect. The book could get a little ridiculous at times: "'Ey! Ya' bleeding radge! I wuz all skaggy-bawed, tha' bird split ya cunt!"
 
green mile....... i think the movie did the book justice, but , then again , i saw the movie first , so i might be somewhat biased
 
Originally posted by Wild1Xu
The Notebook! :)
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure which way you're arguing with this film/book, but I hope it's that the movie was better than the book. I told my roommate I'd read The Notebook on the train because "it is soooo much better than the movie". WRONG! Nicholas Sparks is an awful author. His work is full of cliches, he can never get past the same conversation dynamics, and the development of the characters was not believable in the least. The only good thing that came from the book was the movie, IMO.
 
Nick Hornbys High Fidelity is one of my favorite books EVER...i couldnt stand the movie tho....it annoyed me and cheapened the experience of the book. Meh, it may be just me.

To date the scariest Stephen King novel that i have read remains Pet Sematary...and the movie almost lives up to it too. Almost. Which means it is pretty good.

Marguerite Duras The Lover , and the movie based on it titled L'Amante are both f*ckin works of art...a must read and must see.
 
If you've ever had the displeasure of enduring Johnny Mnemonic, I'm sorry. Because it was a greart short story and a terrible, terrible, terrible movie.

Keanu and that director managled William Gibson. I'll never forgive them. :X :(
 
^Personally, I'd like to see Ridley Scott pull off Neuromancer. =D

Originally posted by crystalcallas
Nick Hornbys High Fidelity is one of my favorite books EVER...i couldnt stand the movie tho....it annoyed me and cheapened the experience of the book. Meh, it may be just me.


Can you elaborate? I thought the characters were right on in the film...plus Chicago was a fantastic setting for the movie, IMO, despite the book taking place in London.
 
He already did a cyberpunk movie, it would be eternaly compared to Bladerunner so no way.

David Fincher though, that I could see. :)
 
The Lord Of The Rings, (it is one book in three volumes) was by far better than the film. Alot of people bitch about the description and say that it drags on, but I loved this apect of the books because it really painted a vivid picture of the Middle-Earth and its people. The most common complaint I've heard is that the first book spent to long in the Shire and talking about Hobbits, I personally beleive that this part of the book is vital because it really illustrates how brave the Hobbits are to leave this utopia for certain danger and turmoil, and it showed the reader what was worth defending, this was glossed over by the film and it suffered because of it. Tom Bombadil, did serve a purpose, it reinforced the magical and mystical nature of Middle-Earth, and the way the movie took away alot of the magic, mainly Gandalf's,( think the way he lights trees on fire in the first book, and the beam of white light he shoots at the nazgul in the third book, which got turned into a flashlight in the movie) took away the charm of the books. In saying that they are still my favourite films along with fear and Loathing and both are my favourite books aswell.

Fear and Loathing, I think that the film is essential to the book, and the book also enhances the film. I found that the book was much more enjoyable with Johnny Depp's Hunter S. Thompson voice as the narrator, made it alot more entertaining, and the movie gave me an idea of the pace it has to be read at. And after reading the book, you have the insight of Thompsons own observations and the film becomes richer.

The only film that I can think of that was better than the book was Rules Of Attraction, the book just didn't flow ell enough, and that scene in the movie where victor's trip to europe gets retold very fast was awesome.
 
^ Rules of Attraction in my mind has one of the most disturbing suicide scenes ever. The way the camera remains on her face the whole time she is dying, and you see every facial reaction to what is happening...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top